Homosexual: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.3
m (added Category:Useful Notes/Sexuality using HotCat) |
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.3) |
||
Line 30:
Today, being homosexual is also about politics. As with [[American Gun Politics|Gun Control]], homosexuality, its legality, its normality and its social acceptability is a [[Single-Issue Wonk]] for a lot of people on both sides of the debate. In modern American politics, for example, it's valid to ask, "Would you vote for [[Barack Obama|an African-American presidential candidate]] just ''because'' he's African-American, regardless of his actual platform," because some people would ''actually answer No'' (or Yes) to that question. A politician's stand on homosexuality can be a similar deal-breaker.
Even better, there are scriptures in various religious texts condemning homosexual acts. This of course raises its own questions: Why are those condemnations there? Is it to encourage reproduction, or does <{{smallcaps|Deity Of Your Choice}}> actually consider it evil? Does the passage of scripture actually mean what you say it does, or is it being taken out of context?<ref>More importantly, who wrote that passage? ''Leviticus'' was written not by God, but by the Orthodox high priests of the day. Most of the Epistles were written not by God, but by St. Paul. And yes, Jesus rebuked the high priests for teaching man-made rules as if they were God's law.</ref> Is it just because, before condoms and penicillin, STDs were much more of a problem and monogamy was the best way to reduce their spread? Some people refuse to ask these questions on principle. Indeed, they tend to focus on anti-gay scriptures while [https://web.archive.org/web/20130809170951/http://ozyandmillie.org/2000/08/14/ozy-and-millie-403/ ignoring those that condemn their own vices], simply using religion as an excuse for pre-existing hatred.
The point is that this is an issue where personal morality, religion and politics all intersect, and if you talk about it openly someone might ask you for a political justification to what you had thought of as a purely-religious opinion (or vice versa). To call it a mess would be an understatement.
| |||