STFU and play Chris Culliver

[jayviabay]

Ehh, I am not a religious man, but I would just, in spirit of accepting others, gays, church-goers, atheists, etc. stop at just saying hate or intolerance is unneeded and that I disagree with those who practice that because of their religion. Going beyond it to say that those who believe are ridiculous and can't think critically is, in my opinion, a violation of that acceptance of others - regardless of faith being a choice.

IF God exists, God *could* do it in ways that have no evidence and faith could be tested. Just as a hypothetical argument, why would God, if he existed, need to leave proof? Because it would make it easier for us to have faith? I know that's an equivocation and doesn't prove anything, I'm just saying believe or don't believe. BTW, that's not my personal belief, but I'm not all-knowing. I show my beliefs through what I choose to do, not through telling others their belief is ridiculous nonsense. Leave others be with their religion, leave others be with their sexuality. I'm not saying there IS a God or that all beliefs including atheism is the same in logic, just respect it and speak out to those who don't respect others, regardless of reason.

It's simple and suffice to say that I don't accept your chosen belief system as a legitimate reason to hate or not tolerate those who are different than you are, regardless of why they are different (genetic or choice). I just find it hypocritical that some who are preaching acceptance of others would say someone's belief system is nonsense and ridiculous. That's not accepting others, like those who post ignorant things about homosexuals here. Yes, saying it here is not the same as action, elsewhere, so there is a relative effect of these things, but it's the same in spirit. Just say you don't believe in it, like a straight person would say they aren't attracted to the same gender but respect it. In other words, I don't care if something is genetic or chosen, whether that be sexuality, race, or religion. Accept all, doesn't mean you need to be friends or join their belief, just don't call it ridiculous nonsense. That's disrespectful. Saying you don't agree is enough to fill in the blanks. I would assume that if you found it logical, you'd believe.

VERY WELL SAID

 

[jayviabay]

Nobody is telling anyone what to believe or not believe. But your religion's laws should not be what sets up laws for the masses. A homosexual's right to marry is independent of anyone's religious beliefs. If your church does not allow its homosexual members to marry within the church, that is that particular religion's right. But your religion's doctrine should not rule up and into City Hall or Capitol Hill. It's really that simple.

I think its safe to say you have not read the whole thread because in this thread, that is exactly what is happening.

I totally agree with the rest of what you are saying, I dont see anyone in this thread that is opposing where you stand.

 

[MHSL82]

A homosexual's right to marry is independent of anyone's religious beliefs. If your church does not allow its homosexual members to marry within the church, that is that particular religion's right. But your religion's doctrine should not rule up and into City Hall or Capitol Hill. It's really that simple.

+ 1.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Kwame Harris: Chris Culliver Is Spreading Hate | NBC Bay Area

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

In other words, I don't care if something is genetic or chosen, whether that be sexuality, race, or religion. Accept all, doesn't mean you need to be friends or join their belief, just don't call it ridiculous nonsense. That's disrespectful.

Yeah, fair enough to call it disrespectful. It is, admittedly. But when this belief is the driver for intolerance - and don't mistake, religious beliefs are one of the main reasons people feel so free about speaking out against homosexuality, they cite the bible, they cite unnatural - I find it wrong.

Maybe I am wrong to fail to distinguish between benign religious beliefs and divisive ones, that may be a problem of mine, but to say "well that's how I was raised" just doesn't fly in my book at all, because of my own experiences.

And genetic or chosen is a pretty big distinction in my book.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Christians are not taught to hate ANYONE. What you experienced does not represent Christianity as a whole. So, you are making comments which you lack knowledge of.

That's just not true. The correlation between fundamentalist christianity and intolerance of homosexuality is pretty clear, and the way they cite the story of Job is the clearest example of this.

Maybe not christianity as a whole, fair. If I paint with too broad a brush, my mistake. But its a widespread belief in America, we hear it from religious folk all the time, citing the Bible itself, and I think its ignoring the obvious to deny this.

As far as my disdain with how this religion is practiced and accepted uncritically, that is entirely relevant to my experiences.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

IF God exists, God *could* do it in ways that have no evidence and faith could be tested. Just as a hypothetical argument, why would God, if he existed, need to leave proof?

At the risk of taking this off the rails, why would you believe in something that has no proof? "God" was a way to resolve mysteries when we couldn't explain them logically. As we've explained these mysteries via provable, testable, tangible knowledge, the notion of a god has become less and less necessary, or logical. Its only sustained through tradition and the desire for conformity.

 

[sjballer03]

Every religion sounds benevolent at its core. But real world practice of religion is not even close.

 

[fordman84]

I'm not getting into what is right or wrong or any of that. I read his apologies and find it hilarious that he is using the "I have gay friends" defense. I am pretty sure us white guys have a trademark on the "I have friends of [insert group here]" statements.

 

[TobyTyler]

That's just not true. The correlation between fundamentalist christianity and intolerance of homosexuality is pretty clear, and the way they cite the story of Job is the clearest example of this.

Maybe not christianity as a whole, fair. If I paint with too broad a brush, my mistake. But its a widespread belief in America, we hear it from religious folk all the time, citing the Bible itself, and I think its ignoring the obvious to deny this.As far as my disdain with how this religion is practiced and accepted uncritically, that is entirely relevant to my experiences.

Ah, the Bible. The greatest work of fiction in the history of mankind

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Every religion sounds benevolent at its core. But real world practice of religion is not even close.

No concept in human history has been used to divide, control, and create hate as successfully or often. Nationalism is a newer concept, and is more effective these days. But throughout history, nothing has ever been more useful for creating an "us" and "them". Maybe that's not the religion's fault, but powerful people have found it to be an incredible tool of division.

 

[wartyOne]

i dont believe homosexuality is an orientation but I do believe they should have equality and the same rights as anyone else.
I also think gays, gov., religious groups, etc., should be open to compromise. Whats wrong with a recognized union of a gay couple without calling it marriage? I am ignorant to how the ceremony would be orchestrated but do they change the Words of scripture in the Bible, that makes it a union under God?

I'm married. God had no place in my wedding.

 

[Bemular]

No concept in human history has been used to divide, control, and create hate as successfully or often. Nationalism is a newer concept, and is more effective these days. But throughout history, nothing has ever been more useful for creating an "us" and "them". Maybe that's not the religion's fault, but powerful people have found it to be an incredible tool of division.

This! (You & I don't disagree on eveything brother!)

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Thanks, I know I'm saying some pretty.....I don't know the word, edgy, maybe offensive....stuff here, but that's how I see it.

 

[TobyTyler]

No concept in human history has been used to divide, control, and create hate as successfully or often. Nationalism is a newer concept, and is more effective these days. But throughout history, nothing has ever been more useful for creating an "us" and "them". Maybe that's not the religion's fault, but powerful people have found it to be an incredible tool of division.

+ 1

 

[MHSL82]

Yeah, fair enough to call it disrespectful. It is, admittedly. But when this belief is the driver for intolerance - and don't mistake, religious beliefs are one of the main reasons people feel so free about speaking out against homosexuality, they cite the bible, they cite unnatural - I find it wrong.

Maybe I am wrong to fail to distinguish between benign religious beliefs and divisive ones, that may be a problem of mine, but to say "well that's how I was raised" just doesn't fly in my book at all, because of my own experiences.

And genetic or chosen is a pretty big distinction in my book.

Religion is a driver for intolerance of some and sometimes it's a driver of arrogance in one's opinion, because it has, by and large, been isolated and protected from criticism because it's unpopular to challenge one's faith. People respect it and don't call it out. Some take that as license to believe all types of things, from justification of murdering "enemies" to refusing all medicine or electricity.

So I share your belief that one's religion doesn't give them the right to spout out intolerant beliefs unchallenged. But I speak to the beliefs itself - as in the intolerance. I don't speak to whether Jesus was resurrected or is the Son of God, because there isn't anything wrong with that belief, as far as my business goes. I could utterly reject that on logic grounds, but I refuse to do it to the public at large out of respect. But if I had a son who was gay, I would not respect their opinion on my son's damnation for one second. I, like you, would not allow their religion shield them from my opinion on the matter and wouldn't take their word (pun intended) to damn my son.

People in Britain were raised to drive on the left side of the road, but when they come here, they drive on the left. I know that location and time is not the same thing, but I do think that living in a different time can effect one's belief system. A lot of people who spout out are old-fashioned raised in pre-movement society. It's hard to convince them of newer things. There are plenty of young people who are old fashioned intolerant, too. I'm not saying all values should shift over time, because theoretically that could allow the poor to steal, etc. Slippery slope. But I do believe in a shift to tolerance from sexuality, religion, race, and the like.

As far as genetic and chosen go, it's a big distinction as to whether I would believe that they are helpless. Those who choose are subject to being challenged fair and square if they speak out and use their choice as a shield. So I would pierce through their wall of religion that says that I can be intolerant because that's my religion's teachings. I would challenge them with my own beliefs on the matter. But it wouldn't matter as far as accepting to respect their general belief, those that don't harm or preach intolerance. I speak to intolerance of race, religion, and sexuality, not intolerance in general to say, murderers, thieves, etc.

 

[MHSL82]

I also can't cast all intolerance as religious based. I know people who are atheists that say that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. There are some who are uncomfortable for other reasons than religion who happen to be believers. Whether they use the religion or not is variable. I know atheists that are uncomfortable with homosexuality even if they don't find it wrong or unnatural. Mentally challenged people are natural, and some people are uncomfortable around them. (I am NOT saying that gay people are mentally challenged, though they may certainly have a different mental makeup than the majority.)

I think what bugs some is the personality of the stereotypical homosexual. That if a heterosexual acted the same way, they'd be annoying to them too. If all people were the same, just they preferred different genders for their relationships, I think a lot of the things you see out there would be lessened. Not saying that the homosexuals that do act more effeminate or loud should change, just saying that it might be a spur to other's reactions.

 

[Bemular]

Thanks, I know I'm saying some pretty.....I don't know the word, edgy, maybe offensive....stuff here, but that's how I see it.

As far as I'm concerned you are just speaking the truth - Religion is the most divisive social and cultural concept and mechanism on the planet.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

You're a very thoughtful, and more respectful, guy than I am, MHSL. All of your comments are appreciated.

 

[MHSL82]

At the risk of taking this off the rails, why would you believe in something that has no proof? "God" was a way to resolve mysteries when we couldn't explain them logically. As we've explained these mysteries via provable, testable, tangible knowledge, the notion of a god has become less and less necessary, or logical. Its only sustained through tradition and the desire for conformity.

I don't subscribe to this theory. I tried to make that clear. It's a circular reference. I was saying IF there were a God, and you couldn't challenge this, just buy it for the sake of argument, I can't see why that God would need to leave proof. The problem with this, I know, is that I'm talking about an all capable God. But if there were a God, he by definition could do it any way he wanted. We would have no proof, if he didn't want proof. In fact, it's that faith in something that has no proof that, and it may be found silly by some/most, that make some feel that they are better than others. They're not, but they can believe what they want. That's not saying that you should believe this or that this is sound logic, I'm just saying as a hypothetical, I can't take no proof to be proof that he doesn't exist. As I said, I put my beliefs in action, not in words on a message board. I would go to church, give tithing or whatnot, etc. if that were what I believed.