|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All sins are as bad as bestiality, not just homosexual acts
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm moving this down here because the purg thread (Evangelical slide into fundamentalism) has been told to shut up about any aspect of homosexuality that doesn't directly relate to the OP. This doesn't, so I figured it had best go here.
On that thread, CLS1, in defense of comparing homosexuality to bestiality, made the following claim:
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
But on the other hand, when people talk along the lines of "How would you like your sins compared to [insert least favorite disgusting sin]?", they've completely missed it also. All sin is abominable, including mine.
My response:
What you're missing here is that nobody goes around saying that lending money at interest or gossiping are the moral equivalent of bestiality. That charge is specifically leveled at homosexuals by either confused or hate-filled heterosexuals specifically as a libel. Specifically to demonify.
You personally may not be doing it for this reason. But then when somebody points out to you it's offensive, the correct response is to say, "I'm sorry, I wasn't meaning to be offensive, I won't do that any more." Not to justify it and plow right ahead.
The "hey, don't look at me, I think all sin is as bad as bestiality" defense doesn't really cut it. It's like saying, "Hey, I think we all killed Jesus, so when I say the Jews killed Jesus, it's not meant as a slur."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Totally in agreement, mousethief. The whole point of mentioning the two together is to suggest not only that they're both sins, but that they're both the same kind/category of sin.
If the general point was truly that all sins equally meet the description of falling short of the glory of God, there would be no reason to go for "another perverted sexual practice" as the comparator.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
mt.
Well put.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
More to the point imo, is that homosexual sex is not a sin at all.
Total category error.
If anyone wanted to compile a list of sexual sins I would suggest they go looking for all those which harm others, not those which are natural and perfectly human. Which slots we use to give each other pleasure should be a non-issue for us all, in my view.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Well I read somewhere (can't remember the source) that back in the day, all sexual practices that could not result in procreation were put in the same category, so bestiality and homosexuality were in the same sin bucket. And I'm not even sure now whether the RCC would put them in separate categories.
They may have a different yuck factor, but that is not a theological category.
In fact it's quite interesting to ask why christians would put trans-specific sex (which is what it would be called if it were politically acceptable) in a different category to trans-gender sex. I can imagine some decent answers, like sex must be on the basis of love.
But this is a bit circular, because the anti-gays would apply the same argument that the anti-bestiality lobby would deploy, namely that it is not love, because it is in its essence a preversion. How do I know someone cannot love a sheep?
Or goat, in the case of Edward Albee's recent play. Actually this is a weird piece of drama, though I'm only going by reports. It's about a man who falls in love with a goat. And Albee is gay, so I've no clue what he's trying to prove.
Maybe it's lack of consent? OK for veggies, but otherwise, you're in the odd ethical position of believing it's ok to kill and eat the sheep but you can't shag it first without consent.
By gut feeling, I would put them in separate categories, but I'm not sure of the ethical basis.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I would say it's abuse of a living thing.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Maybe it's lack of consent? OK for veggies, but otherwise, you're in the odd ethical position of believing it's ok to kill and eat the sheep but you can't shag it first without consent.
That's a fairly startling proposition, but I don't immediately have an answer to it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well, God did tell Noah, "every living thing shall be food for you" but not "every living thing shall be fucked by you."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Maybe it's lack of consent? OK for veggies, but otherwise, you're in the odd ethical position of believing it's ok to kill and eat the sheep but you can't shag it first without consent
Um, what? One may believe that human's have evolved to the point where we might consider the harm to an animal, by killing and eating it, as wrong. But one species eating another is a natural function. But lions do not fuck zebras, they eat them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Maybe it's lack of consent? OK for veggies, but otherwise, you're in the odd ethical position of believing it's ok to kill and eat the sheep but you can't shag it first without consent.
Well the whole controversy over non-stunned halal meat rests on the proposition that you can kill and eat the sheep but not cause it a few seconds of suffering beforehand ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
How interesting that we are resorting to either religious arguments or natural law to justify "OK to kill and eat not OK to fuck". (I have exactly the same reaction by the way).
I would have argued something along the lines of humane slaughter being preferable to bestiality, but on my travels I've come across a lot of animal slaughter that isn't all that humane (and humane animal slaughter hasn't become an issue until quite recently in human history) and I find that a lot less objectionable than bestiality. And I'm not sure I'd be all that tolerant of necro-bestiality following humane slaughter.
Perhaps it shows that a lot of morality is quite instinctive and rationalised afterwards.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It's also about lack of love, I would say. How sad that some people have so little love in their lives that they resort to shagging sheep for comfort.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Maybe it's lack of consent? OK for veggies, but otherwise, you're in the odd ethical position of believing it's ok to kill and eat the sheep but you can't shag it first without consent.
In fact come to think of it, you're allowed to artificially inseminate a sheep, aren't you? So it's OK to fuck sheep, as long as you don't use your own sperm ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
And observe various other animal welfare regulations.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
More to the point imo, is that homosexual sex is not a sin at all.
Total category error.
If anyone wanted to compile a list of sexual sins I would suggest they go looking for all those which harm others, not those which are natural and perfectly human. Which slots we use to give each other pleasure should be a non-issue for us all, in my view.
Boogie, I have a few thoughts that way on the bold stuff. My male dog humps his male cage partner. That's perfectly natural; dogs are "dumb animals". I catch my kids "playing doctor" - again, perfectly natural, but I stop them and re-direct their attentions, or perhaps do some explaining if they're older, or even some gentle probing to see what has aroused this curiosity (just in case of abuse). But again, perfectly natural. I guess I could go on this way, even in other categories, I catch a man in bed with my wife, it is natural to want to kill him and/or her, etc. But I don't see "natural and perfectly human" as a defense for homosexuality.
I think if we call ourselves Christians (maybe you don't I don't know), we have to say that we are more than natural, carrying, as many (lately Josephine) has noticed, the image of God - badly flawed by the fall, but still, we are more than natural.
This is a comment on your defense only, not on whether or not homosexuality is actually a sin.
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
<tangent alert...or is it?> So, apparently, it is alright to fuck a sheep without consent if you use your hand and not-your-own sperm.
But this means we have procreation without sex per se, which must also be some form of abomination, in that it goes against the "natural order" of things.
There's a whole field of "what goes into which slot?" that needs to be regulated by religious fiat.
Is it proper, for instance, to kill and roast a sheep for the Passover if it was created through articial insemination by a Gentile?
<tangent thought ends>
[ 30. July 2012, 21:29: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I guess I could go on this way, even in other categories, I catch a man in bed with my wife, it is natural to want to kill him and/or her, etc. But I don't see "natural and perfectly human" as a defense for homosexuality.
You went off on one about 'natural and perfectly human' and missed my first (more important) point that we do no harm to others.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I catch a man in bed with my wife, it is natural to want to kill him and/or her, etc.
Really? I mean being angry I can understand but kill? Or was that hyperbole?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Would also be rather interesting to unpack the reasons for wanting to kill/harm HIM and the reasons for wanting to kill/harm HER.
Because only one of them is married to you. The other has made no promises to you whatsoever.
Anyway, that risks being a tangent on our tangent...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
[I'm belatedly re-locating to this thread my conversation with CSL1 about whether linking same-sex relationships to abusive ones is okay or not. I'm taking the liberty of re-posting the following comment here. If that's not the right thing to do, then obviously a host can delete this post]
CSL1: since you feel that I’m giving you “circular and vague responses” to your questions, I will respond to your questions, below, as directly as I can. I hope this helps. I’m mentioning this, because otherwise the bluntness of my responses might seem rude.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
... So your criterion for determining whether something is morally non-objectionable is if all parties to the activity are: 1). consenting and 2). have the capacity to render the opinion that their particular activity is not objectionable?
No. I see consent and capacity as morally relevant in lots of cases, but not as universal moral criteria. You seem to be trying to classify me - first you seemed to think that I applied utilitarian ethics to all moral questions (understandably, since I was talking about harm). Now you seem to wonder if I’m a liberal (in the sense of a person who priorities autonomy in moral questions.). As I’ve said, my criterion for determining whether something is morally objectionable is to ask: what moral rule(s) apply? How should the rule(s) be applied, according to their purpose(s)?
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
...Wouldn't that take a Deity or any higher standard-giver out of the formulation? Couldn't that lead to morally objectionable results?
No to your first question, since (as I aimed to show in my ‘stay in the park’ example) I see this approach as a way to apply God’s moral teaching as faithfully as I can. Yes to your second question – for example, I could misunderstand the purpose of the rule, which could lead to morally objectionable results.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
...E.g., assume a high priest with a knife to the throat of a sacrificial virgin, assume both "have the capacity to stand up to you and say 'what we're doing isn't wrong'?" Now, does that make the human sacrifice right?
No, because I don’t use consent and capacity as universal criteria. In that situation, I’d ask: what moral rule(s) apply? The rule ‘You shall not murder’ applies. What's the purpose of this rule? Because human life is sacred; we should only kill in very exceptional cases that aren’t ‘murder’ (like self-defence; as Firefly’s Captain Reynolds would say “Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!). Applying this approach, I’d say that human sacrifice is wrong. You could argue that this approach (a) doesn’t answer every moral question (there will be grey areas about whether some situations are murder or not) and (b) uses human reason and secular knowledge (e.g. on defining murder). If you argued that, I’d agree with you on both points.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
OK, I'll answer it now... So in light of that fact, I'm at a loss for your line of questioning here.
Thank you for answering my question. The point of my line of questioning was that, in a debate, if your opponent links your loving relationship with an abusive one, then they’re associating you with something nasty in your own mind. This may provoke a confused or angry reaction from you, enabling your opponent to point out how ‘hypersensitive’ you are – scoring cheap points. If there’s an audience, then – in the mind of the audience - your opponent has also set up an association between you and something disgusting on a visceral level. That’s why I see linking someone’s loving relationship with abusive relationships is an unfair debating tactic ... I see it as the debating equivalent of ‘going negative’ in a political campaign. I hope that helps you to understand my view, even if you don’t agree.
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
... I simply don't get you, what are you thinking? ...
I am sorry for confusing you! My thinking was along these lines: CSL1 says that he’s debating in good faith. When he seems to ‘go negative’ (e.g. linking me with two notorious alleged liars) while defending debating tactics that I see as ‘going negative’ in a similar way (linking an opponent’s relationship with an abusive one) then I struggle to believe CSL1’s claim of good faith. I shouldn’t conclude that CSL1 is ‘guilty’ of bad faith without putting the case to him (my suspicions may be ill-founded) and looking for an explanation which would show that you are, in fact, arguing in good faith.
Having said all that, I’ve only just noticed ( ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) that mousethief started this thread in Dead Horses. If we continue this conversation, I guess we should do so on that thread? To facilitate that, I'll take the liberty of re-posting these comments there.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I guess I could go on this way, even in other categories, I catch a man in bed with my wife, it is natural to want to kill him and/or her, etc. But I don't see "natural and perfectly human" as a defense for homosexuality.
You went off on one about 'natural and perfectly human' and missed my first (more important) point that we do no harm to others.
Well, that's just it. There's no way to deal with the "do no harm to others" as it's far too subjective. My point was, it's natural and perfectly human to do a lot of things that, as a society, we still proscribe.
quote:
OP'd by George Spigot:
Really? I mean being angry I can understand but kill? Or was that hyperbole?
Well, it was hyperbole in my case, but it would be a l-o-o-ong way from the first time such a killing would take place. And I did have an psychotic episode once where I thought " 'X' has to die." Fortunately I was under care and called my counselor and we just got through it. (It was not, however, with my wife, who has been thoroughly faithful and a veritable saint. I had perceived 'X' as doing terrible harm to one of my loved ones.)
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
