Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

Cycloptichorn wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

There are lots of stories and testomonies here of folks that would argue that homosexuality certainly does cause "unnecessary suffering".

They must not be doing it right.

Only suffering on themselves, not others. That's not what we're talking about here.

Cycloptichorn

So you're saying that family members and friends don't suffer when Dad leaves the family to engage in an affair with Bob? Or a Christian mom & dad don't suffer when their son is engaged in a lifestyle they abhor and which puts him at considerable risk?

Top general calls homosexuality 'immoral'

By Aamer Madhani
Tribune national correspondent
Published March 12, 2007, 5:28 PM CDT
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexuality is "immoral" and on par with having an extramarital affair.

slkshock7 wrote:

So you're saying that family members and friends don't suffer when Dad leaves the family to engage in an affair with Bob? Or a Christian mom & dad don't suffer when their son is engaged in a lifestyle they abhor and which puts him at considerable risk?

The first has nothing to do with the homosexuality itself, but with infidelity and general asssholishness. Being gay doesn't make you a jerk, your actions do.

If the Christian mom and dad want their gay son to have a more stable lifestyle, they should vote to allow him to join a civil union or marriage. They should try and do something to promote a more stable lifestyle for him that doesn't involve bigotry towards his sexuality.

I think the Christian mother and father need to read the bible a little bit more and ask: did Jesus abhor gays? No, he most certainly did not. They may want to attempt to act a little more Christian instead of being so judgmental.

You've failed to make a convincing argument that homosexuality hurts anyone at all.

Cycloptichorn

criteria for establishing what is right and what is wrong or moral and immoral...center around whether an act of mine (or another's) seems to lead to unnecessary suffering.

It really doesn't matter whether that poor family's pain is due to their dismay that Dad has left to practicing homosexuality or if it is simply infidelity, as you suggest. The bottom line is that unecessary suffering has occurred and consequently, if using Blatham's moral compass, you and I would both agree that Dad shoudn't do that.

If I use Blatham's (and your) logic on the gay son, he should realize that his movement into the homosexual lifestyle would cause unnecessary suffering for his parents, and therefore make the moral decision not to go there. I expect the son might suffer for awhile, but as you said, we're not talking about personal suffering here, just suffering of others.

You also missed the point that I said the parents abhorred thier son's lifestyle, not that they abhorred him. As for Jesus attitude to gays, I agree He would not abhor gay people, but He certainly would consider homosexuality to be a sin and He would never condone sin. Just like the son's parents, He would demand the gay son renounce his lifestyle and follow Him.

Silk, doesn't a man's straight lifestyle cause suffering by others? For instance, this guy leaves his wife and children and takes up with his young female secretary, causing great pain to his family, and possibly himself due to the disgrace. If he contracts an STD, he could injure others with whom he makes contact, not to mention himself.

Quote:

[..]

One of many similar responses to the first item:

Quote:

Obama mum on gay 'immorality'

Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving the firefighters convention and asked him three times if he thought homosexuality is immoral.

Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."

Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.

Why the dance? Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to alienate moderates -- or social conservatives, the churchfolk who view homosexuality as a sin.

Quote:

It really doesn't matter whether that poor family's pain is due to their dismay that Dad has left to practicing homosexuality or if it is simply infidelity, as you suggest. The bottom line is that unecessary suffering has occurred and consequently, if using Blatham's moral compass, you and I would both agree that Dad shoudn't do that.

Well. The problem in your example isn't that the guy is gay, it's that he is unfaithful. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. All it has to do is with his personal failure to remain monogamous. So it doesn't apply to a conversation which revolves around the suffering caused by a homosexual lifestyle.

I agree that Dad shouldn't cheat on his wife, but it has nothing to do with being gay.

Quote:

If I use Blatham's (and your) logic on the gay son, he should realize that his movement into the homosexual lifestyle would cause unnecessary suffering for his parents, and therefore make the moral decision not to go there. I expect the son might suffer for awhile, but as you said, we're not talking about personal suffering here, just suffering of others.

I disagree.

If you stated "Cycloptichorn, if you write the word 'gay' then you make me upset and cause unnecessary suffering for me," then I would be under no moral or ethical duress to not say that word.

When we say 'cause suffering' we don't mean that people are upset because they don't like the choices you've made. We mean actual suffering.

You should work on your logic.

Quote:

You also missed the point that I said the parents abhorred thier son's lifestyle, not that they abhorred him. As for Jesus attitude to gays, I agree He would not abhor gay people, but He certainly would consider homosexuality to be a sin and He would never condone sin. Just like the son's parents, He would demand the gay son renounce his lifestyle and follow Him.

You are 100% incorrect. Jesus never demanded that anyone follow him.

I believe you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian, my friend. It isn't about telling others what to do or not do with their lives. It's about loving them and forgiving them.

Cycloptichorn

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

.

BTW, doesn't the bible talk about killing, among others, homosexuals? As I recall, the bible is a very bloody document.

No...the problem is that he is gay AND unfaithful. I expect the family might have a problem with both those facts.

And how do you define "actual suffering"? Going back to my original abortion example....the baby suffers...and the woman does not suffer (at least not at this early stage of her pregnancy). Therefore, using your logic, this makes abortion immoral, correct?

Sounds like Jesus is demanding people follow Him. There are dozens more examples, and therefore, I'm somewhat astounded that you contend Jesus never said "follow me".

Then He turned to the woman and what did He say? Did He simply allow her to continue her adulterous lifestyle? Most certainly not. He simply said He would not condemn her and advised her to "leave your life of sin".

Quote:

No...the problem is that he is gay AND unfaithful. I expect the family might have a problem with both those facts.

You're wrong, because his gayness isn't something that hurts the family. You specifically presented an example of suffering inflicted on others by being homosexual, and when countered you are backing off of the fact that the infidelity is the real issue. Lame.

There are two reasons the family is upset in your example - first, the husband is cheating, and second, the husband has mis-represented himself as straight. It isn't the fact that he is gay that causes actual suffering to his family, it's the lies.

Quote:

And how do you define "actual suffering"? Going back to my original abortion example....the baby suffers...and the woman does not suffer (at least not at this early stage of her pregnancy). Therefore, using your logic, this makes abortion immoral, correct?

Depending on your morals, yes. This has nothing at all to do with our current discussion.

You apparently don't understand the difference between 'demand' and 'ask or advise.' Jesus never once demanded anyone follow him, not once did he say 'you must follow me.'

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Quote:

Then He turned to the woman and what did He say? Did He simply allow her to continue her adulterous lifestyle? Most certainly not. He simply said He would not condemn her and advised her to "leave your life of sin".

You're wrong. Jesus in this example did allow her to continue her adulterous lifestyle. He merely advised her to change her lifestyle. He neither commanded nor demanded that she do so nor did he condemn her. Thanks for posting something which upholds my position so strongly.

No...if you put it that way, I'd argue the family would be upset for three reasons. For his cheating, for his lies, and for his homosexuality. If the wife really loves the husband and believes homosexuality to be an immoral lifestyle, she won't just grieve for his leaving and lies. She'll be equally sorrowful that he's engaged in a lifestyle she feels is immoral and potentially dangerous to his health.

Again you're arguing semantics...clearly Jesus disapproved of her lifestyle. She could continue in her adultery, but not if she intended to follow Jesus. Jesus never condoned ongoing sin in His followers.

The family - wife and kids - have the ability to choose for themselves whether or not they are upset by homosexuality. This is not a quality which the Dad can affect. It is a personal choice made by each individual.

For example, a family of Hindus would be horrified if the Father suddenly decided to start eating meat. This doesn't mean that eating meat is inherently wrong, though.

Quote:

Again you're arguing semantics...clearly Jesus disapproved of her lifestyle. She could continue in her adultery, but not if she intended to follow Jesus. Jesus never condoned ongoing sin in His followers.

So what? You said that he demanded people to do things. It's not semantics, it is a basic misunderstanding on your part of what Christianity is about.

You can't change your argument in the middle, friend.

Cycloptichorn

mind you - not that Obama was any more eager initially to give a clear answer:

Quote:

Obama mum on gay 'immorality'

Newsday caught Obama as he was leaving the firefighters convention and asked him three times if he thought homosexuality is immoral.

Answer 1: "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

Answer 2: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country, should they be able to if they're doing all the things that should be done."

Answer 3: Signed autograph, posed for snapshot, jumped athletically into town car.

Why the dance? Maybe it has something to do with not wanting to alienate moderates -- or social conservatives, the churchfolk who view homosexuality as a sin.

A spokesman later had to clarify that "Mr. Obama said last night that the senator, too, disagreed with General Pace's remarks and believed that homosexuality was not immoral."

blatham wrote:

The criteria I have settled on center around whether an act of mine (or another's) seems to lead to unnecessary suffering. And whether an individual is attracted to someone of the same gender or the opposite gender falls quite outside of that criterion. Conversely, placing homosexuals in a category which disallows them full equality and full dignity seems very clearly to foster unnecessary suffering for those people.

And I was under the impression you thought my criteria was subjective. At least my criterion is written down...all you have is some subjective thing called "unnecessary suffering". Who defines what constitutes "unnecessary suffering"?

With a quick google search you will find references to why a Christian believes the Bible condemns the practice of abortion. I won't repeat that here, but since I believe human life begins at conception, then I'd argue that abortion causes "unnecessary suffering" to the baby. A woman might argue that the imposition of pregnancy causes "unnecessary suffering" to her. Am I correct or the woman? Same argument could be made for statutory rape (what unnecessary suffering is caused by consensual sex between a man and a fourteen year old girl?).

There are lots of stories and testomonies here of folks that would argue that homosexuality certainly does cause "unnecessary suffering". Who's to say that you are right and they're wrong?

That your criteria is "written down" seems rather weak as a basis for any reasonable moral philosophy. Mein Kampf is written down, for example, as is the Tibetian Book of the Dead or the Koran. Would you also allow them some superior-to-subjective status as you do with your favored text?

More to the point, your use of "subjective" (and it's opposite, 'objective') seems really to sit on nothing other than some species of intellectual cowardice.

I expect you won't grant the Koran (or other scriptures from other faith communities) the same status as your favored text. I expect you won't hold them as "objective" in the manner you hold the Bible.

Further, you avoid consideration of where you text came from. If it was composed by men, then you are simply trying to escape the subjectivity of their contributions to the text. That's where you look rather cowardly. You clearly do not value your own powers of reason and your own innate sense of right and wrong because you have to, it seems, turn elsewhere to provide these things for you.

<<<<snip>>>>>
ps...yes, some criterion such as "unnecessary suffering" is not black and white or paint-by-numbers. It can be complex to evaluate moral matters and it almost always is. Which seems to be the reason that many find appeals to authority rather easier to use as their guide. But it is the coward's or the lazy man's way out.

Well, you're wrong...without question, I would consider documents like the Koran (even Mein Kampf) as vastly superior guides for one's moral decision-making than your completely unbounded "unnecessary suffering" basis.