Brad Pitt's Mom Writes an Anti-Gay Letter: Which Celebrity Has the Most Embarrassing Parent?

Would you support legalizing prostitution? I'm sure that you, as a woman, would be horrified to have to sell your body to make a living. However, there are many ladies of the night that are trapped in this "profession" because the degradation of their lifestyle has caused them to spiral into drugs or financial dependence. It has been argued that legalizing prostitution would at least protect these ladies from some of the crime associated with their job and take away some of the shame and stigma attached to them and give them a better chance to get out of that lifestyle. But to the average woman, being forced to sell their bodies is an absolute abomination! They could never imagine degrading themselves in that manner. To these women, legalizing prostitution would only be making it easier for other women to degrade themselves in a way they think is demeaning.

But this doesn't affect you, so why should you care?

Let me make a hypothetical point: It might bother you because you see these ladies walking the street and you wish you could help...that you could turn them away from their lifestyle so they don't have to sell themselves anymore. Perhaps in your mind, NO woman should have to do what they do. So, while their actions don't affect you in any real way, the compassion in your heart wants to do everything in your power to end this lifestyle of use and abuse.

I know gay marriage doesn't affect me directly. Nothing these folk do with each other has any impact on my life. However, I feel that men who submit their bodies to other men are degrading themselves in such an awful way that I can never imagine how they could bring themselves to do it! I have the same abhorrence to this that women have to the thought of being forced to prostitute. In addition, my faith teaches me that their actions are sin and an abomination in God's eyes. Therefore, I am against any law or policy that would make it easier for them to copulate, because in my mind they are committing the worst self-degradation imaginable to me! I wish that they could be healed and not have to be gay anymore, but there's really nothing I can do about it. So I at least don't want it to become any easier for them to harm themselves than it already is.

The bottom line is that laws against both prostitution and gay marriage are preventing people from doing what they want with their own bodies and lives. The question then becomes "Does the law have the right to deny certain lifestyles, even if these lifestyles really don't hurt or affect anyone else?" Where do we draw the line morally? Or is morality relative to the culture?

Prostitution and gay marriage are two different things.

Prostitution should not be legal because most women caught up in it never wanted to become that. Point me to a prostitute that truly wants to be one and I'll point you to one who I wouldn't "save".

But gay marriage is about love, the same way straight marriage is. People don't have a choice about whether or not they are straight are gay, they just are. They aren't "submitting themselves", they are expressing their love, just like straight couples do. Gay marriage is not preventing them from doing what they want to with their body and lives because that IS what they want. They are fighting for their right to get married because they want to get married.

The following sentence in your argument actually made me laugh: "In addition, my faith teaches me that their actions are sin and an abomination in God's eyes. Therefore, I am against any law or policy that would make it easier for them to copulate, because in my mind they are committing the worst self-degradation imaginable to me!"
As I already said, according to your faith, the worst sin is to love another god. That is the worst thing you could do in God's eyes, yet I don't see you fighting against freedom of religion. Why are you not against the law that makes that easy? People who believe in another god are the worst sinners of them all.

Where should the line on morality be drawn? Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic raised Catholic, not an atheist-- I believe that the existence or non-existence of any god cannot be proven either way. But I think that the line of morality should not be drawn relative to any one religion. The same book in the Bible that outlaws homosexuality also says that you can buy slaves from neighbouring countries and sell your daughter should you so choose, and that anyone with a "blemish" cannot go before God (and then goes on to give the examples of hunchbacks, a broken limb, a limb that’s too long, or even a dwarf cannot go near to offerings.) Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with people of Christian religions, but I don't think certain issues that they've drawn a line on-- basically, anything that's only wrong because God says so, not because of any real-life consequences-- should be considered seriously by the rest of the world who does not necessarily believe in the God who says it's wrong.

Prostitution and gay marriage are but 2 sides of the same moral dilemma. There are many other sides to it as well but I used this as my example.

I would argue that both prostitution and homosexuality have been traditionally regarded as "immoral" by most every culture in human history. The degree in which they were disapproved of depended on the society, but they in large part have both been considered "bad" by religious and non-religious folk alike. The social stigma of these issues has pre-dated both Christianity and Judaism. So it's NOT just a "religious" issue. There are many people who have a problem with these things based on MORAL grounds.

My question is whether the "moral fiber" of the world has changed to where beliefs that certain ways of life once considered wrong by consensus are now becoming acceptable? If that's the case, where is it all heading? If morality is relative, there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" but only what the society of that day considers right and wrong.

If right and wrong changes with the times, all the "barbaric" laws in the Old Testament can easily be put into the context of the culture and the times (Ancient Middle East). But again, if morality is relative, which of those laws are still viable today? Which of these are still acceptable and which are not? Where do you draw the line?

Why is "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not steal" still considered a commonsense law but "thou shalt not lie with another man" now obsolete?

Perhaps the answer is not in the prohibited things themselves but in their enforcement. Homosexuality, witchcraft, adultery, cursing your parents, and idolatry were all capital offenses in the days of the Old Testament. For the most part, each of these is still considered "wrong" (to varying degrees), but there are few who think these folk should still be put to death (or else I and just about every other person who ever argued with their parents in their teen years would have been long gone!). However, for those of us who believe in God and the Bible, the IMMORALITY of these things still remains regardless of their consequences.

The Bible does not have the power to dictate punishment since America is the land of "separation of church and state". That does NOT prevent the Bible's adherents from abhorring those acts forbidden therein. Man's law has changed but the things God considers sin do NOT change.

Therefore, according to our faith, we can't endorse any law or activity that commits the things prohibited by God Himself. If given over to a popular vote, I'd have the right to vote against gay marriage. But the decision has been left up to the individual states and not the general public, so I really don't have much of a say. I do, however, have every right to disapprove of it without being called "reprehensible", "intolerant", or "hateful"

It seems you are saying I don't have to endorse it, just let it happen since it doesn't involve me. To me, that's like seeing someone getting mugged and the thief telling me "This doesn't involve you" and telling me to just move on. Sure, it's not ME who's being robbed, but in my mind, the very act of robbery is a crime and that crime will continue if people turn a blind eye to it. In our eyes, homosexuality IS a crime (sin) and we are abhorred to see it becoming socially acceptable. You might not understand why, but it is our stance based on what we believe, according to the Bible.

I know there have been many misguided Christians who have gone too far in their condemnation of this act, holding "God hates fags" signs and preachers saying gays should be rounded up behind electric fences. Please don't assume ALL Christians are so spiteful. I have known quite a few gay people in my life and there have been several I have really liked and respected as people. Still, I disagree with their lifestyle and don't think they should be doing what they do.

I think the jury's still out on the "born this way" argument. The human brain and all the intricate biological molecules that interact within to give life to the human being are so vastly complicated that science is still mostly in the dark on exactly how it all works. In the interim, I can cite that some people are naturally disposed to become alcoholics. Scientists believe there is a gene that carries through the bloodline, so that people who have had alcoholic parents are much more likely to be alcoholics themselves. See this link:

http://www.learn-about-alcoho...

Does this mean someone who was "born" with a natural tendency to be an alcoholic should now be indulged in their addiction? Keep in mind that people are also born with a variety of other mental and physical diseases: down syndrome, autism, birth defects, etc. What if homosexuality was just another such ailment that we don't have the science to treat yet?

Few would agree that giving a drunk beer is a good thing. Isn't allowing gay marriage only rewarding those who are gay?

I'm afraid I cannot offer you an explanation as to WHY I consider homosexuality immoral WITHOUT citing the Bible or personal dislike. The Bible has become a moral compass for me, and my own personal aversion to the subject existed as a natural reaction from my youth. I just think it's WRONG and that no matter what you say to sugar-coat it (two people in love, equal rights, etc) it STILL doesn't FEEL right.

Therefore, my opinion on the morality of the subject is in fact based on the Bible. Perhaps that invalidates my opinion in your eyes. But it is still my opinion, and since God's Word takes precedence in my heart over man's laws, I am always going to side with the Bible. It is a sin in our eyes, one we feel should not be encouraged or indulged, and any laws that do accommodate this sin are only opening doors to make their behavior more acceptable.

You have a right to your opinion. I've met many Christians whom are very tolerant compared to most. As I said, I was raised Catholic and taught catholic morality. The problem is, when you really can't explain why you consider it wrong besides your religion says so (because not all people believe in your religion, which may or may not be correct) and just that the act feels wrong to you (I'd imagine the thought of your parents sleeping together grosses you out like it does most people, but if they didn't, you wouldn't exist)... you have no argument to convince people who aren't of your religion and don't care what happens behind closed doors that it's wrong. And I really believe that religions shouldn't force their morals on others unless they have a valid secular argument as to why it's immoral. I once had a religion teacher who said that Christians can't use the argument of "we shouldn't force our morals on others" (this was in regards to the issue of abortion) because we already do on issues like theft and murder... but the problem is, you can consider those types of things wrong without believing in a god.
The reason you can't watch a mugging and do nothing is because you have compassion. Somebody just harmed an innocent, of course you want to help the innocent. It's wrong to steal things because thieves take what they don't earn from the people who did and take their livelihood away. But homosexuality isn't harming anyone-- you may consider it harming themselves, but if no God exists, they aren't even harming themselves. It's part of who they are. Yes, people can be born with other natural tendencies because of the way their brain formed, but if you hand an alcoholic a drink you know bad things are going to happen-- alcohol is a depressant, they won't be happy, they won't be able to hold a job and support themselves, and they'll likely harm their family emotionally, possibly physically, and also financially. Alcohol can also kill you when consumed in such amounts. But allowing gay marriage is not like handing an alcoholic a drink. The jury will probably never return on the "does God really exist" issue, so whether or not any harm is being done to anyone-- even themselves-- cannot be certain. Because you already made the comparison, consider a person with down syndrome or autism: they aren't considered any less people because of it, and the people they know try to make living with their disability as comfortable as possible. If homosexuality is an ailment like down syndrome or autism, why shouldn't they get the same courtesy?