Anti-Gay Doctor, Fired from Medical Journal, Uses Final Article to Promote God

[John_Dalton]

@Ashwin_s

Hi John, Sorry for the late reply.

Not at all. For a minute, I thought the undeniable force of my argument had knocked you out of the ring (ha ha).

@Ashwin_s

I think you are making this statement only because you have not interacted much with people from other cultures (or perhaps not thought much about what they believe).

Frankly, I have more than most on both counts I think, FWIW. That being said, I think you raise some interesting points here.

@Ashwin_s

• Many Jains and hindus view eating non vegetarian food is wrong. In fact there are sects in Jainism which go to extreme lengths to ensure they don’t hurt any other living being. I am a non vegetarian.
• For many Hindus, eating beef is a sacrilege. They view it as a terrible wrong. I eat Beef.

So this is food. In my experience, people understand that different religious groups have different dietary laws and requirements, and can be quite accepting of it. I have actually spent a fair amount of time in SE Asia, where you can see that dynamic in play between different groups living together. The basic concept to me seems to be “that’s what they eat” and not “they are engaging in an immoral act”. Some places and people are different, I’m sure. More in a minute.

@Ashwin_s

For some mulsims, one of the worst thing a person can do is confess that God has a Son. Its a sin guaranteed to take one to hell.I do exactly that as a christian.

Somewhat similar, but a religious doctrine.

@Ashwin_s

For some American liberals, calling sex between the same gender a sin is a deeply immoral act. I call it a sin.

We also call murder an immoral act, etc. I’m not saying that no one should ever call anything immoral.

@Ashwin_s

Jains view non-vegetarianism (or any kind of killing) as strict no. Now i love non-veg food… eat it every day. I would not expect Jains to accept me as a practitioner of their religion without giving up this habit. No matter how difficult/impossible it is for me. And i wouldn’t call it prejudice or discrimination. I definitely wouldn’t expect them to change their religion to accept my lifestyle. I respect them too much to do that.

Great, and nor would I.

@Ashwin_s

Christian sexual morality applies to both homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. If someone who claims to be christian is addicted to sex and indulges in a lifestyle that involves sex outside marriage, the church has every right to correct such a person and restrict their membership rights/privileges. Why not the same for practicing homosexuals?

A heterosexual person still has an outlet for their natural sexuality under this situation.

What all these things do not address is this–a homosexual person is seeing their natural sexuality denied under your doctrine. Sexuality is a fundamental part of being a person. It’s not the food you eat or whether you choose to say one particular prayer or another, etc. The option presented is to accept that your sexuality is “immoral” and give it up in order to be accepted as “moral” by the religion. Again, I think you are greatly underestimating what this really means.

Some people may think for example that I am completely immoral if I eat pork. I might laugh this off or have a conversation about it, while continuing to eat pork as I please. I’m not likely to get extremely angry about it because eating pork is not an intrinsic part of who I am as a person. Telling someone that the expression of their natural sexuality is immoral is quite different. I would be quite angry about that myself.

@Ashwin_s

American Secular liberals (including Christians who lean that way) need to recognize what part of their world view is due to a culture they have adopted. Unfortunately, most of them act as if their cultural views and biases are holier than that of other cultures.

That may be true to a degree, but homosexuality transcends culture, and you’re making a moral argument about it. I wouldn’t necessarily call you homophobic because you subscribe to a religion that deems homosexuality “immoral”. But again, I’m not directly involved, and I certainly understand why people would be upset about being so labelled. As I’ve said, I largely agree with them, and I recognize that the concept has led to many problems for them throughout history and now. For my part, call me immoral for exercising my natural sexuality and I will probably use harsher words than “homophobic”. Happily for me, this is a problem that you have to work out. I subscribe to a philosophy which is completely in line with both my personal feelings on the matter and what looks to me like simple common sense and decency.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

I have actually spent a fair amount of time in SE Asia, where you can see that dynamic in play between different groups living together. The basic concept to me seems to be “that’s what they eat” and not “they are engaging in an immoral act”. Some places and people are different, I’m sure. More in a minute

In the examples i raised, the issue was morality. In the jain case, its about the sanctity of life and a commitment to the principles of ahimsa (non-violence). So obviously, those who eat meat are being violent and not holding life as sacred. Its an issue concerning morality.
In the example of the cow among some (most actually) Hindus in India, the animal is considered holy/sacred and even equivalent to ones own mother. Eating cow meat is often equated to killing and eating ones mother in some extreme cases (which are unfortunately not so rare nowadays).

@John_Dalton

Somewhat similar, but a religious doctrine.

Why would a religious doctrine have less importance than a sexual preference? This is why i said its cultural. Individual Freedom in sexual matters seems culturally very crucial to many Americans (Pls note this is a foreigners perspective and could be wrong).
The raising of Sexual preferences above dietery/ religious beliefs can only be warranted by cultural imperatives imo.

@John_Dalton

We also call murder an immoral act, etc. I’m not saying that no one should ever call anything immoral.

Then whats the point you want to make? Calling homosexual acts a Sin is the same as murder? Is there any rationale to such a belief?It seems similar to my cultures obsession with people who eat cow meat! (we have even made laws against it in many states in India ).

@John_Dalton

A heterosexual person still has an outlet for their natural sexuality under this situation.

No one is forcing a homosexual to be a christian. Its the same as me , non vegetarianism and Jainism. I wouldn’t expect them to change the religion. There is always the option to not participate/ start a new form of the religion if i am that desperate. Again, if i modified Jainism, i wouldn’t call any criticism from the original Jain’s a Hate crime/Phobias of any sort. That would be nonsensical on my part.

@John_Dalton

What all these things do not address is this–a homosexual person is seeing their natural sexuality denied under your doctrine. Sexuality is a fundamental part of being a person. It’s not the food you eat or whether you choose to say one particular prayer or another, etc. The option presented is to accept that your sexuality is “immoral” and give it up in order to be accepted as “moral” by the religion. Again, I think you are greatly underestimating what this really means.

No i am not… By the way, its not just a doctrine of heterosexuals. There are even people who experience/experienced same sex attraction in their life who came to the same conclusion about Christian Doctrine and follow it.
No religion will affirm every lifestyle choice people make. This should be obvious to any sane rational person.

@John_Dalton

Some people may think for example that I am completely immoral if I eat pork. I might laugh this off or have a conversation about it, while continuing to eat pork as I please. I’m not likely to get extremely angry about it because eating pork is not an intrinsic part of who I am as a person. Telling someone that the expression of their natural sexuality is immoral is quite different. I would be quite angry about that myself.

Why is it different? Could it be a cultural thing? Many of my Indian friends tell me that, the cow is different from all other domestic animals… But they at least have the self awareness to understand that the difference is because of Indian culture and not anything fundamental.
I understand people being angry about their actions being called immoral. I can see how even heterosexual people may get angry at being called adulterers or fornicators because they have sex outside marriage. After all, they are having consensual sex and they feel its a perfectly legitimate expression of their sexuality.However, expressing a moral opinion/teaching a moral code on sex is not persecution.

@John_Dalton

But again, I’m not directly involved, and I certainly understand why people would be upset about being so labelled. As I’ve said, I largely agree with them, and I recognize that the concept has led to many problems for them throughout history and now. For my part, call me immoral for exercising my natural sexuality and I will probably use harsher words than “homophobic”.

I don’t know about you, but a lot of ways that heterosexuals exercise their natural sexuality is deemed a sin by Christianity. Yet, I don’t see many heterosexuals getting angry and crying foul.Homosexuality seems a special case.

@John_Dalton

I subscribe to a philosophy which is completely in line with both my personal feelings on the matter and what looks to me like simple common sense and decency.

you are free to do so. However you cannot expect others to make their decisions according to your philosophical viewpoint. That’s why i said, its about philosophies of life and you cannot impose your views on others even if you are convinced your views are somehow superior.
Also, pls remember, there are homosexuals who are christian and view acting out these impulses as a Sin. So, its not purely an us Vs them thing.

@John_Dalton

As I’ve said, I largely agree with them, and I recognize that the concept has led to many problems for them throughout history and now.

This is why i believe democracies should robustly guard basic rights of all citizens. This has nothing to do with whether their actions/lifestyle is moral or immoral. Its just deals with legal realities and constitutional rights.
In fact, beyond issues like murder/theft etc that all of us can agree are wrong and thus have laws against, fundamental rights should not depend on the citizen’s moral credentials.
This is common sense and decency the way i see it.

[Ashwin_s]

@John_Dalton

Not at all. For a minute, I thought the undeniable force of my argument had knocked you out of the ring (ha ha).

:)… i have thought that on many occasions about my arguments too…
unfortunately, it rarely happens. (atleast in my case).

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

For some American liberals, calling sex between the same gender a sin is a deeply immoral act. I call it a sin.

I am a liberal, and I have no problem with christians calling sex between the same gender sinful. Even heterosexual sex outside of marriage is sinful, but that doesn’t seem to get as much attention nowadays.

What I am against is the legislation of religious beliefs. I think personal freedom is important, so people should be allowed those freedoms as long as it doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others.

@Ashwin_s

If someone who claims to be christian is addicted to sex and indulges in a lifestyle that involves sex outside marriage, the church has every right to correct such a person and restrict their membership rights/privileges. Why not the same for practicing homosexuals?

I see no problem with the church having autonomy on how it runs itself or its membership. I am only concerned with law and discrimination outside of the church.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

What I am against is the legislation of religious beliefs. I think personal freedom is important, so people should be allowed those freedoms as long as it doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others.

I agree with you a hundred percent…
But you seem to be a minority here.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

But you seem to be a minority here.

In the general population, I think I am in the majority. I suspect that the church is under much more pressure from within its ranks on the issue of homosexuality than it is from external sources. As younger generations move into adulthood they see gay couples who love each other, are raising families, and are productive members of the community. It becomes difficult to square this with the idea that they are evil and sinful. This chips away at the authority of the church on moral issues within society, IMHO.

[Timothy_Horton]

@T_aquaticus

In the general population, I think I am in the majority.

I agree. In my experience most people have no trouble accepting someone’s personal religious beliefs. If you don’t approve of same sex relationships then don’t have one. The problem in the U.S. is that too many religious people think their anti-gay religious beliefs should trump secular laws against illegal discrimination. They are using their personal beliefs to violate the rights of and harm others.

How would you would feel if you worked in a town where you were the minority and all the restaurants and shops refused you service because their religion taught Indians were second class citizens not worthy of equality?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Ashwin_s

No religion will affirm every lifestyle choice people make. This should be obvious to any sane rational person.

Given the hatred gays face, no religion should characterize homosexuality as a mere “lifestyle choice.” This should be obvious to any sane rational person.

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

In the general population, I think I am in the majority.

Perhaps a silent majority…

@T_aquaticus

I suspect that the church is under much more pressure from within its ranks on the issue of homosexuality than it is from external sources.

I would just amend that to say the “American church”. I think the American church unlike most churches in Asia, Africa etc is not used to being counter cultural in the sense that its core values conflict with the accepted norms among the majority of those who they live among.
Mainstream churches will feel the pressure most and bend the most I guess. But i am sure Churches will emerge that can deal with the “pressure”.

@T_aquaticus

As younger generations move into adulthood they see gay couples who love each other, are raising families, and are productive members of the community.

This is something that cannot be taken for granted. We will know in the future.
Over the last few decades, the liberal west seems to have consistently adopted lifestyles that are not conducive to have families or many children. Fertility rates are consistently dropping. Divorce rates are consistently rising and marriage itself is becoming meaningless and fleeting instead of a lifelong commitment.
I am not particularly sure that Gay couples are the ideal parents for children simply because we don’t know what that does to a child’s perception of himself/herself. I believe kids need and deserve a father and a mother, hopefully United in loving matrimony (ideally speaking). Divorce has obviously taken and continues to take its toll on kids. I don’t know what having two dads or two mom’s instead of the traditional family structure will do to kids.

@T_aquaticus

This chips away at the authority of the church on moral issues within society, IMHO.

Not if the church sticks to its principles.
The church’s authority comes from God. It doesn’t need to have moral authority among those who do not acknowledge God. It’s not the church’s job to wield moral authority on the world, its the church’s Job to teach the Truth to all without fear and guide those who are willing to submit to God’s authority.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Ashwin_s

Over the last few decades, the liberal west seems to have consistently adopted lifestyles that are not conducive to have families or many children

What is the “gay lifestyle”? The term is used as a pejorative in many religious circles but no one has ever defined it let alone shown it is harmful or that it applies to all LGBT people.

@Ashwin_s

I am not particularly sure that Gay couples are the ideal parents for children simply because we don’t know what that does to a child’s perception of himself/herself

Why does it have to be ideal? There are numerous studies showing the most important thing by far in a child’s development is to be in a loving supportive household. The sexual orientation of the parents doesn’t affect that at all.

[Ashwin_s]

@Timothy_Horton

What is the “gay lifestyle”? The term is used as a pejorative in many religious circles but no one has ever defined it let alone shown it is harmful or that it applies to all LGBT people.

Wasn’t exactly talking about the “gay lifestyle”… didn’t even mention it… thing in my mind was late or no marriage, decisions to not have a family/children, late marriages etc… all decisions that are not very focused on families.

@Timothy_Horton

Why does it have to be ideal? There are numerous studies showing the most important thing by far in a child’s development is to be in a loving supportive household. The sexual orientation of the parents doesn’t affect that at all.

Too early to have any real data on this phenomenon. Gay marriage was only legalised a few years ago. So gay family units with adopted children should be a recent phenomenon.
I doubt there is much data on how the kids turn up… that would need atleast one generation.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Ashwin_s

Wasn’t exactly talking about the “gay lifestyle”… didn’t even mention it… thing in my mind was late or no marriage, decisions to not have a family/children, late marriages etc… all decisions that are not very focused on families.

Do you agree then there’s no such thing as one “gay lifestyle” any more than there is one “hetero lifestyle”?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Ashwin_s

Gay marriage was only legalised a few years ago. So gay family units with adopted children should be a recent phenomenon.

It’s been almost 30 years since Denmark legalized same sex marriage. That was soon followed by Sweden, Iceland, and other European countries. SSM was first made legal in the U.S. 15 years ago. That’s plenty of time for same sex couples to raise adopted families and have the results scientifically tested.

Every study done to date shows the orientation of the parents plays virtually zero role in the mental health and stability of the adopted children.

[Ashwin_s]

@Timothy_Horton

Do you agree then there’s no such thing as one “gay lifestyle” any more than there is one “hetero lifestyle”?

I don’t define lifestyles are hetero or gay… why should I?

[Djordje]

@T_aquaticus

I suspect that the church is under much more pressure from within its ranks on the issue of homosexuality than it is from external sources.

You would be right.

[Ashwin_s]

@Timothy_Horton

Every study done to date shows the orientation of the parents plays virtually zero role in the mental health and stability of the adopted children.

Would be good if you can share some studies.
I don’t trust psychology studies much anyway.

It will become obvious as time passed by. Like I said in my original comments, the main point is as below-

@Ashwin_s

I believe kids need and deserve a father and a mother, hopefully United in loving matrimony (ideally speaking).

And I made an admission as below -

@Ashwin_s

I don’t know what having two dads or two mom’s instead of the traditional family structure will do to kids.

It’s your prerogative to disagree.

[Djordje]

@Ashwin_s

I would just amend that to say the “American church”. I think the American church unlike most churches in Asia, Africa etc is not used to being counter cultural in the sense that its core values conflict with the accepted norms among the majority of those who they live among.

You would be wrong. There is a push even here, in Serbia. There are also a couple of gay Christians I know in Russia, although they’re not as open about it, for obvious reasons. There’s also South Africa with people such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu. I have a couple of gay Christian friends from Asia too. England, Germany, Spain etc. too, obviously. Don’t even get me started on South America

The fact that the rest of the world isn’t as visible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

[Djordje]

@Ashwin_s

I am not particularly sure that Gay couples are the ideal parents for children simply because we don’t know what that does to a child’s perception of himself/herself. I believe kids need and deserve a father and a mother, hopefully United in loving matrimony (ideally speaking). Divorce has obviously taken and continues to take its toll on kids. I don’t know what having two dads or two mom’s instead of the traditional family structure will do to kids.

Once again, wrong. There have been surveys done. Children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.

[Ashwin_s]

@Djordje

You would be wrong. There is a push even here, in Serbia. There are also a couple of gay Christians I know in Russia, although they’re not as open about it, for obvious reasons.

Maybe I should have said American and European…

@Djordje

The fact that the rest of the world isn’t as visible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I am sure it exists. However, it existing is different from churches having strong internal debates about whether it’s a sin or not.
The orthodox church has a very clear official position on the issue. So the Catholic church…

[Ashwin_s]

@Djordje

Once again, wrong. There have been surveys done. Children raised by same-sex couples do just as well as children raised by heterosexual couples.

We will be able to see the results in a generation.

There have been some studies atleast that disagree.