Comment by zozbot234 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zozbot234 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> From what I understand, gay people are seen kind of like drug addicts by the church. People who are worthy of pitty, but are still considered "sick".

This is not at all the case in Christian doctrine that I'm aware of. "Gay" is a sexual orientation, and Christians including Catholics have no objection to sexual orientation per se. However it is possible to object to disordered sexual practices, such as heterosexual fornication that inherently denies the true human dignity of those who are objectified by such practices, and also to other practices that are similarly objectifying and involve victimization and denial of human dignity.

Separately, Christian doctrine also objects to those who "put a stumbling block in the blind's path" by promoting destructive practices e.g. via ideology or lifestyle, and unfortunately a sizeable part of so-called LGBTQ+ social activism has not clearly spoken out against objectifying and disordered practices, and in many cases has promoted them quite irresponsibly. However this is always a critique of some highly-visible social activist movements, never of sexual orientation itself!

> unfortunately a sizeable part of so-called LGBTQ+ social activism has not clearly spoken out against objectifying and disordered practices, and in many cases has promoted them quite irresponsibly

Eh? What on earth are you talking about? The morality of the various gay people I know is, not coincidentally, the morality of everyone else. If you're talking about BDSM then if it's consensual it's fine (and if not, it's a crime of violence). If you mean other than BDSM then I've no idea what.

and btw what does 'disordered' mean.

> then if it's consensual it's fine

So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence of even strange and unusual sexual practices such as BDSM? Because this is what it would take for consent to be truly ethical. I don't believe this is what always happens. And yes, I do worry the BDSM community, by and large, is significantly understating the risk that, e.g. some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact grossly unethical by any sensible standard. And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic. Let's face it, rape culture has existed for thousands of years and it can still be a huge problem today.

> So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence...

Mostly, yes, and where it is not, if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop. Always.

> even strange and unusual sexual practices

'strange and unusual' is weaseling. Whether they are or aren't 'strange' or 'unusual' is irrelevent. If consent is given between adults, consent is given. And it can be withdrawn at any point. If you don't understand this about BDSM you should find out more about it (NB. it's not my thing either, but I'm not going to judge).

> some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact grossly unethical by any sensible standard.

this is pure emotive projection of you not liking this stuff. 'grossly unethical', lord, if it has consent, it's fine. Let people get on with what they wish; don't judge, and if you talk of 'sensible standards' you need to nail this down.

> And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic

So you throw in more claims of badness but carefully don't say what.

> rape culture

I presume this exists in heterosexual culture too? It's just as wrong there.

Your post feels more driven by a kind of homophobia than understanding - or any desire to understand.

Like I said, I'm not into it but that doesn't make it wrong by my standards.

Edit: I'm hetero and for the life Of me I can't understand why a bloke would fancy a bloke. But they do. And that makes no sense to me, but I'm not going to condemn it, and when I see 2 people liking each other, of any gender, I just feel happy for them.

> if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop. Always.

While this is hopefully the case, surely you must be aware that this does not in fact absolve the other person from needing to know what they're doing, and to truly care for the person's well being. After all, a victimized person might often be too shocked, scared etc. to even say anything. Or they might assume that what they're experiencing is "normal" even when it's not. Sexual ethics is really, really complicated, and more problematic practices like those in the BDSM spectrum only add to the complexity. "Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential.

Of course you must care for the other person's wellbeing. Which includes consent freely given. BDSM emphasises that. Go and read stuff.

> After all, a victimized person...

In such a case consent has not been freely given. Therefore this would be classed as assault. Edit: there's nothing specific to gays or BDSM in this either, exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex.

> Sexual ethics is really, really complicated

I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Difficult corner cases of ethics always exist eg. treating a person against their will because that person hasn't the ability to consent so someone else must, and the treatment is given without consent (I was in hospital in the next bed to a guy, a child in a man's body, where this happened. Not a nice experience). In most cases things are straightforward. Most adults are adults.

> Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential.

Freely given consent does cut it.

The stuff about true love, I reject. That's a christianised view of sex. People can and do have sex while liking but not loving each other, and you have no right to judge them for it.

...care for others... Obviously

> exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex.

Of course, and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation. The term is fornication, which directly derives from the Greek and Roman terms for their widespread practice of prostitution. But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive.

And Christian ethics says that we must always care for our neighbor with the same love we have for ourselves. Surely this must be all the more true in inherently complex and problematic matters like sex. This is the care for others that is asked of us.

> I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be.

Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter. Not because of weird "corner cases", but because of the extreme level of maturity - and indeed of human self-dignity, self-actualization, autonomy etc. - that's required of us to avoid even unwittingly victimizing others. The case where two people are genuinely and happily in love with each other is not a "christianised view" that we're insisting on for the sake of being judgmental; it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode.

> and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation

You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions and in my case, atheism. So I am amoral? immoral? You haven't learnt from the horrors that christianity inflicted upon so many. In not learning, you are willing to perpetuate them.

> But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive

'overly'? define 'overly' here. It's just a causally slapped-on label. You disapprove of casual sex, well that's your view, not mine. Any sex is fine if it's consented to, including degrading sex, which is loathsome to me but some like that - I will not tell others how to live their lives. But some christians will, it seems.

> Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter

Heck, this sentence is a mess:

"...that can be involved in sexual victimization" as opposed to other victimisation?

"it seems safe to say" Does it? You need to justify this - again without presumptive weasel wording.

"...it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode." More weaseling, implying that my position is 'easy mode' therefore childish and wrong.

If we assume adults can give consent freely by dint of being adults and not in exploitative circumstances, that's enough for me and covers the vast majority of encounters. You're just wrapping up an uncharitable (but christian!) view of what's right and wrong saying others should obey it. This caused eg. gays to have a miserable time for centuries. Shall I mention the treatment of jews, the crusades, the inquision.

I reject anything that leads to a rerun of those, I reject your value system (at least on this aspect). I reject your judgement of others. I reject your intolerance.

Some words from the bible I do like: Judge not lest you be judged.

> You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions

The rule of reciprocity is part of many ethical traditions, as is general respect for temperance and self-control in sexual matters. So I'm not sure how christianity is alone or even 'narrow' in this respect. Of course we should not be judgmental of people for what they do in private, since they're not involving anyone else and can be assumed to act with at least basic responsibility. But those who actively promote lifestyles and ideologies in the public sphere can be fairly criticized.

Like it or not, promoting a lifestyle or ideology such as LGBTQ+ means making very specific claims as to how "others should live their lives" and we all should be free to choose whether or not to further promote these claims and values.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't jive with my friend's real lived experience.

They grew up being told that they were broken and endured life long pain from that upbringing. My friend was literally disowned by her parents who still refuse to talk to her.

They (my friends) aren't Catholic. They are good people who didn't deserve to be put through that experience just because of one religion's sense of morality.

This is all very sad, but it's not clear to me how it's supposed to relate to any religious denomination's actual sense of morality. It's true that Jesus himself has told us, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’" However what he means to say here is that even good Christians will sometimes have to endure rejection, persecution and being disowned by their families. Christian morality however has always advocated for acceptance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com