Life Is Beautiful cuts out gay vows, angers writer

1 djeedjes

October 25, 2010 at 5:13 AM

the excerpt is beautiful, I bet the scene is as beautiful.

Even though I can see why the station did that, I can imagine how disappointed the writer was.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

2 Gigi

October 25, 2010 at 5:13 AM

Arww man, why'd they have to cut that, it seems so sweet - even reading made me tear up a little :)

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

October 25, 2010 at 8:54 AM

me too!...i adore this couple

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

It sucks how Korean network station views gay people. As an American, I love this show and only watch because of this couple and their developing relationship. How Taesub is opening up more. As I finished watching the past wknd episode, I did remember the script stating that after hosub is to marry they will have a civil or so ceremony w taesub uncle doing the honors.

"A church is supposed to be open to anyone and everyone-regardless of who you are or what you’ve done. No one should EVER be kicked out."

So you don't think, say, a child rapist and murderer shouldn't be thrown out and taken away by the police? What is wrong with you?

0

12

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM

Churches have historically served as sanctuaries for even the most egregious offenders. At the core of Christianity is the belief that only god can judge. As a result, the clergy - especially the Catholic clergy who receive confessions and must uphold the secrecy of these confessions - tended to counsel and guide those who've confessed these sins to turn themselves into law enforcement.

So, the person and the sentiment you're criticizing are in keeping with what has been the traditional stance of the church. And I'd dare say the spirit of Christianity (the account of Jesus shielding Mary Magdalene from being stoned).

@tokyojesusfist
*speechless*
No, Tokypjesusfiat the question here is what is wrong with you . The gratuitous display of stupidity, ignorance and bigotry makes me question whether you should be classified as a homo sapien.

Omo! Did I hurt your feelings by not calling you a homo? So sorry. But see the word homo means human and I highly doubt you have developed that far.

"So you don’t think, say, a child rapist and murderer shouldn’t be thrown out and taken away by the police?"

How did you manage to butcher logic so thoroughly in one sentence? You just committed the logical fallacies of false analogy, irrelevant appeal, ad hominem, and argument by innuendo. Bravo!

So, since you committed a crime against logic; I am charging you with four counts of butchery thereby I think you might be a murderer and should not be allowed to hide in a church when the police comes to take you away.

October 25, 2010 at 5:11 PM

anais: "At the core of Christianity is the belief that only god can judge."

There is also this phrase: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

Viola: "The gratuitous display of stupidity, ignorance and bigotry makes me question whether you should be classified as a homo sapien. "

Because I think a child rapist and murderer should be thrown out of the church and handed over to the authorities, I'm an ignorant bigot who does not qualify as a human? Lol, go fuck yourself you piece of shit. And then kill yourself.

0

Javabeans

October 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM

All right, folks. Keep it civil or I'll start deleting.

0

anais

October 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM

@tokyojesusfist

I never judged you. There is a difference between my mentioning in a very civil manner that your tone is offensive and calling you a bigot or whatever else you attributed unfairly to me.

Out of respect for this forum, I have been trying to be very civil and genuinely respectful. I hope we all - on both sides - can continue to engage in productive dialogue.

0

Alice

October 25, 2010 at 8:11 PM

@tokyojesusfist

Did you really just tell someone to go kill themselves? ... because what he or she said offended you? Really? Would that take care of your bruised ego?

0

tokyojesusfist

October 26, 2010 at 7:09 AM

anais: "I never judged you. There is a difference between my mentioning in a very civil manner that your tone is offensive and calling you a bigot or whatever else you attributed unfairly to me."

What are you talking about?

Alice: "Did you really just tell someone to go kill themselves? … because what he or she said offended you? Really? Would that take care of your bruised ego?"

Did you really not read her post and understand its implications?

It's noteworthy how many users openly and passively support her. Then again, murderers and rapists on death row often receive fan letters and marriage proposals from women, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised or anything.

0

han

July 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM

@ Viola and the rest ... 6 months later
I don't know why all of you are jumping on tokyojesusfist here. He just expressed his opinion that churches shouldn't overprotect worse criminals like child rapists or murderers. In no way did he insulted anybody or imply that homosexuals are rapists or murderers.
It's Viola who started this first by implying him as subhuman. Even I cringed at her long ramble that "The gratuitous display of stupidity, ignorance and bigotry makes me question whether you should be classified as a homo sapien." Wow. In one sentence, you insulted a person who you do not know as stupid, ignorant, bigoted and a non-human entity? :shiver: He only stated his opinion that churches shouldn't overprotect criminals, which I bet there are branches of Christianity who would agree; that's why there are so many denominations in the first place - people disagreeing on what should be the core Christian beliefs.

What churches do is NOT serving as a gray alleyhouse for criminals to hide. But rather, a shelter where those people can feel that they still have hope and go surrender and repent for their crimes. Did you ever heard of any Father who does not encourage criminals to confess? Churches are safe harbors where one can return anytime from a long journey to reflect and decide what to do in the next step of the rest of their life. Not an underground escape route. There are people who take advantage of that, of course.

"It shouldn’t matter that being gay is considered a sin... Some churches need to learn to follow their own teachings…."

huh? If the church considers homosexuality a sin then they did right by not allowing them to speak their vows at church, so they are following what they preach.

not just the Asian world....in America too! i live in America and there is SO MUCH HOMOPHOBIA

our country has alot of gay teens commiting suicide lately !!! have u not watch the news?

0

5

reply

Required fields are marked *

hjkomo

October 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Exactly. Have you seen this?
Inspiring!

http://youtu.be/ax96cghOnY4

0

4

reply

Required fields are marked *

hjkomo

October 25, 2010 at 12:18 PM

And also so heartbreaking...
Bravo, Councilman!

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

Viola

October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I want to hug him. What a brave man.

0

diane

October 25, 2010 at 2:13 PM

I watched this last week and it bought tears to my eyes.

I've watched quite a few of the It Gets Better videos and I think they are marvelous.
If they can give any young person hope in a seemingly hopeless situation, I am for it.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

asta17

October 25, 2010 at 6:26 PM

This is so inspiring. It's so amazing that a councilman would expose his story like this, even though it obviously hurts so much to discuss

For ppl who haven't heard about it, this story (from Councilman Joel Burns) is part of the "It Gets Better Project" (http://www.itgetsbetterproject.com/) started by Dan Savage, in direct response to the growing number of GLBT suicides that have been occuring. The project exists for people to show their support for GLBT youth and have a venue to tell their story and to say "It Gets Better". The project was only started ten days ago but they have already surpassed the community video limit on youtube (650) and is currently sitting at about 1000 entries - including videos from Barack Obama, Ellen Degeneres, Tim Gunn, Neil Patrick Harris, Jay Manual, many other celebrities, and many other normal everyday ppl

They also have a pledge that you can sign to show your support (which I just signed :))

You guys should check out the videos right now - though you might wanna bring a tissue box ^^;

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

DramasfortheWin

November 18, 2016 at 10:07 PM

I also love this show and the plotline of a gay couple inside of a tightknit family is one of the highlights. However, as a fellow American, I think you do the "Asian world' a disservice. Even in 2016, gay rights are not a complete given. A show like this airing in 2010 would have had almost the same reception: accolades and love from the people who identified or empathized, threats and boycotts from those with no clue.

Omg... I just read the excerpt and I cried... totally up there with Lan Yu and Brokeback Mountain...

@Niam... Frozen Flower is a movie... it is restricted and there was nudity and passionate lovemaking as well... you have to pay to watch...its just... different to compare them...

October 25, 2010 at 8:08 AM

The Church is against adultery too but that never stopped a network script. Anyway as someone who has enjoyed the show ( I think it is great, and they are only one of 5 couples which is exceptionally well written) Props to the writer for
putting her script out and not being totally bullied by the system.
Public opinion is the reason so we all need to stand up for our beliefs as the Church stands up for its.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

Ani

October 25, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I grew up Catholic, and still believe in it a lot of the teachings. The only difference is, I define myself more as a Christian - believing in love, forgiveness, etc. But not everyone who is Catholic (or Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) believe that homosexuality is something bad. Some of us crazy religious folk out there actually believe that love (whether same-sexed or not) is no sin, and a personal choice that should not be condemned. Last time I checked, the number one Commandment Jesus gave was "Love one another".

*sigh* I hate getting preachy. Sorry. I rarely talk Bible (as in, one in a Blue Moon). So.... I'll just squeal now at the cuteness of the couple. KYAAAAAAAAAA!

0

5

reply

Required fields are marked *

demonwolfie

October 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

when you say you define yourself more as a Christian- more into love and forgiveness, etc
are you implying the catholicism is NOT like that?

uh, Catholics are Christians too. The real name for what people usually use the word 'christian' for is Protestants.
Catholics are actually the 1st Christians.

Also Catholics tend to be a lot more liberal than most Protestant Churches. All the way up to the Vatican doctrine and common teachings.
For example, Evangelicals are the ones that are a lot more strict and condemning, and because they take the bible literally they believe evolution should be banned in schools.
But there's just some tight and harsh judgments on the Catholic Church that hasn't been accurate for a long time.

October 4, 2011 at 8:29 PM

A similar instance comes to mind. There is an excellent Chilean drama by the name of "Romané" ("Gypsies") in which a Catholic priest falls in love with a Roma woman. The town in which it was being filmed would not allow the production to use the beautiful, historic wooden church as the central parish for the priest unless the story did not go so far as to have the priest marry her. (He does leave the priesthood, however, because of his feelings.)

It's interesting to note that when the drama was remade in Mexico (as "Gitanas"), similar restrictions were not imposed!

0

7

reply

Required fields are marked *

Rens

October 25, 2010 at 7:07 AM

I feel like that's a completely different scenario though, because the storyline violating canon law and therefore goes against the institution of the catholic church. So I can see why the church maybe offended and refuse to partake in the filming. It's the equivalent of filming a scene with a pregnant nun in a church.

But here the church, a place that is meant to open its arms to everybody, is uncomfortable and unwilling to tolerate the DEPICTION of open gay men within its doors.

This has come on top of the mothers' union ad stating “If my son becomes gay and dies from AIDs after watching ‘Life Is Beautiful’, SBS must take responsibility!” and the barring of the show from airing in prisons, since you know, it'll incite homosexuality.

Oh Korea, you have so far to go.

0

6

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 7:58 AM

"mothers’ union ad stating “If my son becomes gay and dies from AIDs after watching ‘Life Is Beautiful’, SBS must take responsibility!”"

Are you serious? I feel as if I've somehow been transported to early/mid 1990s America. Do Koreans really still think of AIDS as primarily a gay disease? Um, I believe the first diagnosed case of HIV infection in Korea occurred between a hetero couple.

Sigh.

0

3

reply

Required fields are marked *

๋JT

October 25, 2010 at 8:53 AM

they even published it on newspaper - -"

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

okie dokie

October 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM

OMG, when I saw that article, I was going to die. I'm not Korean, so I'm not completely versed in the culture. But I asked my husband, who is, if people are that crazy there. We were just reeling over that stupid article. I honestly can't believe people are that stupid and closed minded.

Perhaps they should think, if their son becomes gay, he probably shouldn't have put that dirty syringe into his veins...

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

msim

Yes, I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. But we all sin.. it's not judging.. it's simply being human. We all struggle with some kind of sin.

As for the Old Testament.. it shows how "evil" sin is. The reason that the punishments were so tough/inconceivable is simply punishment for what Adam and Eve did. And partly, some of the punishments would have made sense back at the time when diseases weren't treated and when the cultures were different. You have to take it in context. But mostly, when I read the Old Testament, I just get feel so thankful God sent Jesus to take away those punishments. That's what Jesus did on the cross.. so even though those rules where in place.. we as Christians now don't receive those punishments any more when we repent. It just shows how much Jesus takes away and how loving he was. I can't really explain it as well as I'd like.. but I hope my point is clear.

Anyway.. just because you don't like our religion or agree doesn't make us bigotted necessarily. I don't hate gay people and I think they should have the same rights as anyone.. I also consider them sinners, but again... EVERYONE is a sinner. So I don't believe they should be treated any worse than any other person. It's not judgment. Sadly, people (not just Christians) have a stigma about the relationships which I feel is unfair. But everything isn't black and white.

God's number one comand is to love one another as we love him, and I try to follow that.

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

Dory

October 27, 2010 at 7:41 AM

@Winsome and Laeah
I agree with you guys! Thanks for explaining it well.

@Lotte
To you, my belief may be rubbish but to me, it is called FAITH. I do not expect you to understand since not everyone can agree on everything.

0

Mars

October 25, 2010 at 11:09 AM

"I am open to the idea that they may have been 'born' with it, I do believe homosexuality is a sin."

Hi, Winsome, I was born gay. Did you notice there's no condescending quotation marks around born? It's offensive to me that you believe that what is an unchangeable part of me is a "sin" (see the quotation marks?). It's really ignorant.

But following along with your train of thought, riddle me this: If God has a hand in creating all people, and God does not make mistakes, why would he create *me* a gay guy? I guess even a loving, accepting, and forgiving God needs to create someone so that he can channel all his pent up hate, eh?

Christians get a bad wrap because of a rotten handful, I know a lot of them that are just are genuinely accepting and open, because of the above, because they believe that God does not make mistakes.

I am really proud of all the members of the DB community calling out all these failtastic commenters! It's great knowing that there so, so many awesome people! It's one of the reasons I love visiting the site and engaging in conversations with everyone. So, thank you guys!

0

3

reply

Required fields are marked *

Ani

October 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM

I've seen/read post from Dramabeaninans doing this, and it will be my first. So I hope you don't have the same reaction (flinching I mean) when I do this. *Hugs Mars*

I have that same belief that God creates all that is good, and that if God did not mean for it, than it would not be. (Okay folks, I know the counter argument to this, so don't try throwing it back at me, because I'll just counter the counter.) I'm what other people would call Loony Moony, but if being human, sane and sinless means judging others for the way they live, etc., than I'd rather run around howling to the moon in the nude and join a pack of wolves than be human. I'm just sayin'. Oh man, I got preachy again didn't I? *sigh* Anything that has to do with defending the GLBT community always gets me riled up and ready for battle (whether it be from the political, religious, ethical, perspective). If my future adopted kid (um yeah, too many siblings equals me not wanting to give birth) ends up being gay or bi, I want them to have everything in the world and be able to sleep at night knowing that their sexual orientation is not something to be ashamed of. I don't want any kid (or person who realized their orientation later in life) living in fear of the future.

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

Mars

October 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM

@ Ani *Hugs back*. Internet hugs are awesome and always welcome in my book. People who flinch also probably hate joy. Your comment has got me grinning like mad! So, yeah, DB community? Still pretty darn great! :)

@ Winsome: When you're commenting intent is unimportant. "Oh, I didn't mean to sound [x]" is not really an excuse for sounding [x]. As you can see quite a handful of people found your comments, and tooizzy's comments to be problematic.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

corrakun

October 25, 2010 at 7:57 AM

hear, hear.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 8:10 AM

Church. FAIL.

If you read the dialogue, the dialogue itself invokes the function of the church as a sanctuary.

Tae-sub – [Stopping, looking ahead] “…It’ll be okay [to go inside] even if I’m not religious, right?”
Kyung-soo – [Looking ahead with him] “I think so.”

The writer was inviting the church and actually trying to present the church as a loving entity. Instead, what happened is the reality of human anxieties, fears, and prejudices.

For those who are defending the right of the church and its parish members to uphold their beliefs, let them get worked up about this scene (a scene, a fictional account, a symbolic representation) after they commit themselves to ridding all the actual adulterers, the cheaters, the liars, the child abusers, etc. within their own congregation, denomination, their faith, and so on. Please, the hypocrisy.

The church loses would-be faithful members with these hypocritical, empty gestures that are more about symbolic pomp of the supposed righteousness of the church than about the actual, complex, messy problems that merit church attention.

0

3

reply

Required fields are marked *

Alice

October 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM

That was really well-written. I wish someone would award you with something!

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 26, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Ah, would be fabulous if that award were Moony, Yeorim, and Garang's eternal companionship. :)

0

viola

October 26, 2010 at 6:53 AM

Would you take a Pink Heart instead? :)

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

diane

October 25, 2010 at 2:27 PM

"It is institutionalized homophobia that creates the sort of society where a 13 year old feels he has no other option than to blow his own brains out because he can’t live with the bullying and teasing and cruelty, and like it or not, organized religion still plays a large part in perpetuating that sort of intolerance and ignorance."

So true. Not just the bullying either, but murder. Remember Matthew Shepard?

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

Laeah

October 25, 2010 at 8:04 PM

It's wrong to say that only Christians are anti-gay or bigotted. Because non Christians can be just as anti-gay.

I, personally, am a Christian and I have not bullied anyone.. I also doubt that all those who bullied the poor kids were Christian.

It's unfair to say all Christians are one way simply because a minority or even majority act that way. Not all interpretations are right because people aren't perfect. People misuse religion. That has always been the case.

Since you have read the Bible.. I wonder if you have also read the passages of hope and love and generosity, because that, I believe is the true message. We are flawed... but we can grow with our personal relationship with God. Everyone has their own relationship. I don't believe I can judge anyone else, since I have sinned.

Sadly, many people don't understand this, even though they claim to be Christian. Christianity is not about hate. Hate it the opposite of what Jesus teaches us.

I feel for those children who died and I too believe that bullying is wrong.

But this is not a purely Christian phenomenom.

As far as "going out of their way to kill you," I find that sentence offensive as a human being. Have you ever heard of the Crusades? Did Hitler have the same mindset when he carted off Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Gays, mental and physically disabled "defectives"? I could go on and on here.

As for "who are the persecuted", I have heard this off and on for at least 30 years. It is my observation that Christians are no more persecuted than any other religion.

I suggest you Google, And then they came for me.......

0

3

reply

Required fields are marked *

Laeah

October 25, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Okay.. once again.. The Crusades were a political power play done under the guise of Christianity and religion and have nothing to do with Christianity. Same with Hitler and the Nazis who committed those crimes.

I feel really offended as a Christian. Maybe you should read some history about how the church was run back then. It was more of a political control institution rather than a religion.

Political Christianity (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc) has NOTHING to do with anything Christian. It all has to do with people using a organization to coerce members into believe certain things... Once again.. done by humans, not God.

0

2

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 8:39 PM

While you are right that the politicization of Christianity is distinct from Christianity as a personal faith, they are in some ways inextricable at the institutional level, especially in terms of the drama scene that sparked the debate here.

I personally don't believe that church officials who decided to pull the plug at the last minute are evil people. I believe that, as people, they must motivated by politics (small p, not capital P) - be it self-imposed or externally pressured. I do rue that they are sending the wrong message about Christianity, a message that does have material repercussions as this forum so clearly makes evident. While Protestantism aims to allow for an intimate relationship between the individual and God, the reality is that many people do blindly take the word of whom they regard to be God's representative. Until those who wield influence stand against wholesale institutionalization of bigotry (which, let me acknowledge, you and some other Christians are doing admirably here), those who criticize politicization of religion will continue to point to the failure of the institution to live up to its espoused ideals.

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

Laeah

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

babomori

October 26, 2010 at 1:20 AM

@ stupid church & to the rest who have been ranting against the Christian faith.

Pls note that it is not only the Christian faith who condemns Homosexuality!!

HOMOSEXUALITY IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF NATURE!!

There has been lots of talks about Gay Rights, etc etc. What about the normal order that God planted on earth? Man together with woman procreate.

Example of homosexuality being against the order of nature?? Simple!! A gay relationship (i refuse to use marriage, marriage being a sacred union btwn men & women) does not bear fruit. Can man & man create a child or a woman & woman create a child. NO! Only man +woman can.

With the rising amount of gay activists, I think that we who are against against homosexuality should voice out our views as well.

Church is a sacred place of worship. God destroyed the cities of Sodom & Gomorra because of their immoralities (homosexuality & bestiality, etc).

I applaud the church in Jeju for standing firm in its belief!

0

2

reply

Required fields are marked *

Jackie

October 26, 2010 at 2:12 PM

You make several logical flaws in this poorly constructed argument.

First of all, homosexuality cannot be against the order of nature if it is naturally occurring. I'm a gay woman, and trust me when I say: it is absolutely genetic. I in no way, shape, or form chose to be gay. In fact, I put a great deal of energy into "choosing" otherwise. It has taken me the better part of my adolescence and early adulthood to accept who I am, and I am still overcoming the effects of a decade of repression.

Secondly, any basic ethics class will teach you about the slippery slope you enter once you make broad generalizations like "Example of homosexuality being against the order of nature?? Simple!! A gay relationship does not bear fruit." Your procreation argument implies that infertile men and/or women (alternatively, women past menopause) should not be allowed to engage in romantic/sexual relationships. And yet I suspect you have absolutely no problem with heterosexual relationships that have no possibility of "bearing fruit."

I am not misunderstanding you; I'm deliberately deconstructing your argument to illustrate how flawed it is. I understand where you're going with this (not because you articulated yourself well - rest assured you didn't - but because it's an argument I've heard before). Unfortunately for you, there's a major logical fallacy inherent here. You're presupposing that the only purpose for romantic and sexual relationships is procreation. I'm pretty sure that most people would disagree, and as I've pointed out above there are a number of troubling details you're going to have to confront if you opt to travel down that road.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

Pierre Royce

May 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

1. The Bible teaches that adulterers should be stoned to death, and hence married men and married women who are in adultery should be stoned to death just as the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should the Bible be re-interpreted correctly?

2. The Bible teaches that any person who divorces his wife or her husband has committed adultery and should be stoned to death and hence any Christian who divorces his wife or her husband should be stoned to death just as the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should the Bible be re-interpreted correctly?

3. The Bible teaches that any bride who is found on the wedding night not to be a virgin should be stoned to death, and hence any Christian bride who previously had sex should be stoned to death just as the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should the Bible be re-interpreted correctly?

4. The Bible teaches that Jews can have slaves and can enslave the insolvent and prisoners of war and hence any Christian can have slaves and can enslave the indigent poor and other races just as the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should the Bible be re-interpreted correctly?

5. The Bible teaches that Jews can rape their females slaves and merely pay a fine or set their female slaves free and hence any Christian man can rape their female slaves and merely pay a fine or set their female slaves free just as the Bible teaches that homosexuals should be stoned to death. Should the Bible be re-interpreted correctly?

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

18 amg01

October 25, 2010 at 7:21 AM

This situation is a clear example of a "Catch 22", where you are doom if you do or doom if you don't.

A lot of you know my opinion concerning the used of the
"Gay" or gender bending issue in shows like ‘Sungkyunkwan Scandal’ I do find it offensive how it is used as a mere ploy for two heterosexual people to fall in love, in my opinion that is a way to cheapen the Gay/lesbian experience.

And now when a church applies their standards of belief upon a situation like this they are condemn severely, I find it very odd we condemn the church for their reaction, but we condone the producers of shows like ‘Sungkyunkwan Scandal’ for their offensive used of the homosexual experience that at the end do not help Gay's and Lesbians in Korea but along with the church set them back from receiving "Equal Justice" under the Law and under the Church Cannons!!!!!!!!!!!

0

11

reply

Required fields are marked *

Kender

October 25, 2010 at 7:42 AM

A lot of you know my opinion concerning the used of the
“Gay” or gender bending issue in shows like ‘Sungkyunkwan Scandal’ I do find it offensive how it is used as a mere ploy for two heterosexual people to fall in love, in my opinion that is a way to cheapen the Gay/lesbian experience.
One of my non-straight friends thought the same thing about Coffee Prince, so I see where you're coming from. :)

0

7

reply

Required fields are marked *

Lotte

October 25, 2010 at 8:59 AM

This. Sometimes I just want to disown the human race. It's why I like dogs better than people!

0

dannaluk

October 25, 2010 at 9:00 AM

you got a point

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

Laeah

October 25, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Yeah.. I would agree, except that in history.. women have had to dress like men in order to be able to do things that women were not allowed.. So yes, sometimes it's a cheap ploy.. but it does have historical reference.

I think it's silly in the modern times dramas.. because really.. what girls run around like boys? But as for SKKS, or Painter of the Wind (sp?) I think it does have context.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

Eleven11

October 25, 2010 at 11:46 PM

I totally get what you mean about crossdressing shows and how they treat homosexuality as a plot device in order to prove how 'true' the couple's love is. And its just sooo true, because it's also hetero, and therefore socially acceptable. Bleh.

Viola

October 25, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Viva Moony-Yummy coalition! :)
Bromance or just romance, they are LOVE!

0

6

Required fields are marked *

ohemgee

October 25, 2010 at 1:50 PM

OMG thank you for quoting THE goo yong ha!

i LIKE this so much it hurts (my face from smiling and my belly from laughing so hard!)!!

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

20 ain527

October 25, 2010 at 7:24 AM

the show can just make it up by redoing the scene, like filming it in any place that is NOT the church (cause i agree, no matter what you believe in you can't just go in a church to film something that goes against its beliefs)... maybe kyung soo's apartment?

That's so..narrow minded, ugh. :/

I'm not religious, but one of my best friends goes to a church (I don't remember which denomination, but it's Christian) that is very open and accepting of any and all who enter. There are several gay couples and gay singles there, and some of them have even have children together (adoption, artificial insemination, etc). Of course, she lives in NYC, so that might have something to do with it.

Still, I just don't understand how anyone in this century can see love between two men or women as bad or unnatural.

The first gay/bi/non-straight person I ever met (that I knew of then) was in high school. When he came out, none of us were particularly surprised or even really cared -- he was still our friend, and we still loved him. When one of my female friends came out as bi, and then later as simply gay, we accepted her too. I live in the Bible Belt, and all of my friends (except me) were born and raised here, and even growing up amidst people telling us that homosexuality was wrong and sinful, we knew better and accepted each other for who we were. (The gay guy's parents blamed me for his gay-ness for some reason, as if sometime during our Latin classes I had sat down with him and talked him into converting because I liked the idea of having a gay friend so much. Because that makes sense.)

In college, roughly half of my friends were gay or bi. Two of the girls didn't even subscribe to such simple definitions of sexuality and used other terms like pansexual and others I don't remember; one of them I'm pretty sure is going to end up getting a sex change in a few more years. My best guy friend was gay, and I loved him not because I could talk to him about boys or could hug him without worries, but because he was a wonderful and interesting person.

One of my aunts (by marriage) is a lesbian, and ended up divorcing my uncle and taking their kids. She now lives quite happily somewhere in Florida with their three boys and her long-term girlfriend, and my cousins are growing up fine and happy and, as far as I know straight. Obviously growing up with two moms hasn't "corrupted" them any.

I don't really know where I was going with any of that, but I'm just..annoyed. Well, more than annoyed, but I don't know if I can adequately express my feelings in words.

I'll never be able to understand how anyone could deny other people their basic right to happiness. The thought that my friends won't be able to marry their significant others one day (most of them are single, but the girl from high school is in a deeply committed relationship with her girlfriend from college) or that my aunt can't marry the woman who helped raise her sons honestly makes me want to cry and throw things against the wall.

So, yeah. I've rattled on long enough, so I'm going to end simply by saying: countries of the world, get your act together. I'm watching you.

October 25, 2010 at 8:16 AM

Tae-sub and Kyung-soo are the only reason I watch Life Is Beautiful - these two are mega-adorable.

I thinks loads of Koreans are not religious or simply mildly religious.
But some have bees in their bonnets and they scream the loudest against any progressive change and give the impression that Korea is still stuck in the last century.
They are a miserable lot. Epic Human Fail!

I'm hoping for a truly secular world: I want nothing coming between me and my fondness for m/m slashness or love.

p.s.:very touched that viewers showed their support for the gay storyline- it warms my heart and gives me hope.

0

2

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 8:21 AM

"I thinks loads of Koreans are not religious or simply mildly religious.
But some have bees in their bonnets and they scream the loudest against any progressive change and give the impression that Korea is still stuck in the last century.
They are a miserable lot. Epic Human Fail!"

Ditto.

From the perspective of 'respect' as demonstrated by the two sides, i.e. the couple and the religion, the couple certainly respected the religion enough and thought highly enough of a 'god' to want to make their vows in a sanctuary and in front of the entity.

It seems that the same level of 'respect' is not reciprocated by the religion.

October 25, 2010 at 8:33 AM

The truth is the majority is not prepared yet for such thing and shoving them with such scenes will not make them any more prepared and accepting of homosexuality.

Well, at least not in South Korea...so we just have to move on despite being disappointed and everything...

0

3

reply

Required fields are marked *

Lotte

October 25, 2010 at 9:11 AM

I respectfully disagree. More scenes like this, more storylines like this are PRECISELY what South Korea/the world needs. Although there are many reasons for homophobia, ignorance does play a large part. Because homosexuality is so "invisible" in SK, people can go on believing the rubbish that they've been told/inherited because they're never actually confronted with the truth. The more visible homosexuality is, especially as it's portrayed in LiB, the more people will gradually come to accept that gay people are just like everyone else - they're not monsters, they're not boogeymen, they're not perverts. They're just people: flawed, complicated, normal. Like it or not, people all over the world are heavily influenced by what they see on tv. To break the cycle, the media (and this applies to every country) needs to stop ignoring homosexuality, to stop perpetuating stereotypes and playing into people's prejudices. Of course it's not a magical antidote to homophobia (or to racism/sexism/any ism), but I sincerely believe the more shows like LiB there are out there, the more progress will be made in opening people's minds. If we wait for them to be "prepared", we may be waiting for a hell of a long time!

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

October 25, 2010 at 9:00 AM

I'M GLAD the gay part was EDITED OUT. This drama should not be airing in the first place. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!!!

Required fields are marked *

Viola

October 25, 2010 at 9:42 AM

the cookie offer was for you Moony meia46

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

moony meia46

October 25, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Wow, NOW I am really honored. The heart is precious, but cookie???!!!! I could die of happines, but SKKS is still airing, so I will have to find another way to properly thank you. For now, you will have to settle with my girl-crush on you.

0

brookeeve

October 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM

I'm not crying because you're regifting my cookies!

0

4

reply

Required fields are marked *

Viola

October 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Oh Unnie don't cry! Uljimae unnie, uljimae! I love you and I treasure the cookies. It's just that moony meia46 was so awesome in quoting Yummy, that I think she is worthy of a few cookies. Only a few mind! :)

0

brookeeve

October 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

sniff, sniff. okay then.

0

moony meia46

October 26, 2010 at 2:58 AM

Brookeeve, please, don`t be sad. Half of a cookie is enough for me to be forever grateful.

0

brookeeve

October 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM

I am happy, then! :)

0

okie dokie

October 25, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Completely agree.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

October 25, 2010 at 4:37 PM

LOLing @ your ignorance and lack of an open-mind.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

Eleven11

October 25, 2010 at 11:47 PM

your face is a sin.

I think this is a logical position for the church to take since the church is against the homosexual lifestyle. And that should have been respected from the beginning to avoid this.

Further, if it was indeed in a Catholic church and the scene absolutely needed to be shot in a church, they could have found another church, perhaps a non-denomination church more open to the idea.

I've read some of the other comments about how adulterous situations have been shown--and maybe I'm not as well-watched on dramas--but I haven't seen these acted out in a church--which would probably have provoked the same response from the church as well. The production team really should have done its research before deciding to do the filming in that particular church.

0

5

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 9:18 AM

honey, read comment #16.4

They *had* done the research.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I've been trying to refrain from saying really snarky things, but...

I think this is a logical position for the church to take since the church is against the homosexual lifestyle. And that should have been respected from the beginning to avoid this.

Further, if it was indeed in a Catholic church and the scene absolutely needed to be shot in a church, they could have found another church, perhaps a non-denomination church more open to the idea.

You're right. The Catholic Church is against homosexuality and against gay folks who love one another to be able to love openly with church blessing. BUT how messed up is it that the Church not only doesn't seem to mind but goes WAAAAAY out of its way to protect/shield men who like to fondle boys. Open love between consenting partners who happen to have the XY gene = no sanctuary. Sexual molestation of a non-consenting victim with same XY gene = decades of sanctuary? The Church certainly didn't tell the priests who molested kids to go find another church that would accept them and their molesting ways. Not only that, they vilified those who brought up charges, when the Church had known fully the validity of such charges (as demonstrated in church records).

I am an American and i dont know why people speak about the "Asian world" like they are they only ones where homophobia exist

As an American, in a country of USA- where its suppose to be "FREE" ...there is still alot of backward things....
We dont have marriage equality in America.....

European countries are so ahead of America.

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

okie dokie

October 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM

I agree. We may think that we're ahead of the curve, but we're not. NOT AT ALL. In fact, it seems like the past couple years, we've been taking huge steps backwards in equality. It's sad, but I feel like there's more hate and more divide than ever.

And I'm a Californian. I ask myself daily - How is it that Iowa has legalized gay marriage but not us?? I thought we were supposed to be the liberal state. Nope.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

35 Joey

October 25, 2010 at 9:24 AM

in America, we cant air a Mcdonalds commericial that had a gay kid in it.

the commericial was something about "come as you are"
it was shown in France or something

But america will never show that

America is very much homphobic
there are Christian extremists that protests in our streets saying "GOD HATES FAGS"

0

3

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Folks, yes, America is not a haven. But please, it's a heck of a lot better than Korea when it comes to homosexuality for a number of reasons.

Korea is small and densely populated. America is huge, and with space comes the luxury of not having to put up with a neighbor you don't like. It's possible to move to gay meccas or gay neighborhoods in large metropolitan areas. Yeah, it sucks big time if you can't, but it's more possible than not, as it is in Korea.

Yes, there are Christian extremists in America who are frightening. But it is possible to be visibly gay and find open support. It is possible to march regularly down the streets of urban centers, showing pride en mass. Heck, during Pride Fests, it's possible to go attired only in leather strips or show off pierced boobs even if one is female. Even these instances of carnival (in its original sense) aren't permissible in Korea.

Also, there isn't the sense that, by refusing to marry and procreate, one is somehow singlehandedly responsible for the demise of one's entire lineage. Especially for men.

And there are many other reasons, social, economic, philosophical, etc.

So, while the desire to keep people from romanticizing America is understandable, it's equally important to refrain from falsely leveling the differences.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

brookeeve

October 25, 2010 at 2:43 PM

That's not all we protest!

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/07/westboro_baptist_churchs_comic.php

This atmosphere here has gotten all kinds of unhappy, somber and divisive. To lighten the mood, watch this vid. I guarantee that it will make you happy :P merong!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDhzOz7S3Aw&feature=player_embedded

This link was originally posted by Thundie on her blog. Thank you! :)

OK here is my take on this issue.

I think the people at the Church in Jeju misunderstood the script and the PD. One, the Catholic Church is against same sex marriage. The scene they were filming might have looked to them (the peoole at the Churchin Jeju) as a wedding ceremony/marriage of the gay couple. Of course the Church does not want any misconception that same sex marriages happen on their Church.

I believe the Catholic Church does not turn away people because of theur

0

2

reply

Required fields are marked *

xiaoSxin

October 25, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Cont..
I believe the Catholic Church does not turn away people because of their sexuality. The Church welcomes and respects people from all walks of life. Love is one of the core of Catholicism and is rooted in Jesus' acts and words. Catholics have come to accept that modern times have changed the way people express and show love to one another. After all, love one another is Christ's foremost teachings. The Church may be accused of being hypocrites, conceited and of discrimination because we acknowdge love in all forms but oppose marriage of people with same sex, it is because one cannot change centuries old history and tradition easily.

It is very sad because that scene based on the excerpt could have been a significant way to show a lot people that it is OK to love somebody despite being against the standards of society. As a Catholic myself, I believe that scene embodies the teachings of Christ of love and respect.

The people at the Church in Jeju could have been misinformed about the scene that was to take place or probable was pressured to give in because of the fear of condemnation. They might have feared that the prejudice against gay couple in Korea might give a whiplash on their stand of Catholics against same sex marriage.

Maybe it's just that Korea isn't really ready for same-sex marriages and gay couples as we thought.

In the end, we can only speculate about this news.

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 8:07 PM

It is very sad because that scene based on the excerpt could have been a significant way to show a lot people that it is OK to love somebody despite being against the standards of society. As a Catholic myself, I believe that scene embodies the teachings of Christ of love and respect.

Exactly! The church missed an opportunity.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

40 Middle

October 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM

This resonates really closely with me. I can completely understand the misconceptions about homosexuality, because I was raised in a deeply devoted Christian home. My Korean mother is still unnerved that I "came out" to her. The hurt in her eyes hurt me. The way we deal with me being gay, is simply not talking about it.

The scene as written in the script was both a genuinely emotional and heart-felt scene. It saddens me that this scene was unaired.

I feel the church in Jeju-do was portrayed in a very positive way. As a santuary for all sinners. I think as Christians we all forget that we have all sinned and fall short of God's glory.

The wedding vows were done in private, which adds to the deep intimate scene. I don't see how the church is portrayed negatively or against their beliefs. We pray things and say things in private we don't want others to hear or know about. This is the same. It wasn't done with anybody in attendance.

@18.1.1.2.2. msim

"Can I say how much I love Javabeans for existing and allowing k-drama fans to have super-evolved discussions. Who says pop culture is for dits?"

Who knew deconstructing KDrama culture can generate such heated and rich discussion?! This site is more than just our source of Kdrama crack.

Javabeans, take a bow!

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

45 brookeeve

October 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I am a Christian. I have seriously studied my religion under many experienced and wise teachers, among which are http://isc.memphis.edu/jdst/patterson_bio.php and http://www.uu.edu/Unionite/fall00/poe.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham. I have listed my mentors not in matter of importance, but in the amount of time I have spent with them and the closeness of my relationship with them. I inform you of these things so that if you want to argue with me about religion, you know that you are really going to have to bring it.

First, I want to define sin, according to Christianity. Sin is in fact an archery term used to describe missing the mark (in archery, the bull's eye or in Christianity, missing the mark of God's perfection). A sin occurs anytime you do or do not do God's will. Also, God does not differentiate between sin. A liar is just as bad as a murderer is just as bad as someone who called their neighbor a fool. Any time you use your tongue to tear down a person, any time you use your hands to harm a person, any time you choose to not show a person compassion or love, you have sinned.

That being said, God loves all of his children. Every single one. God wants us to show His holy love to all of His children. Letting a liar or a murderer or even a child molester in Church would be the purpose of the Church. The Church is not there for perfect people, it is there for people who need God.

I am really disappointed that a member of my religion chose to post in this multicultural forum words of hate. This is not what my religion is about. How are we supposed to show the world what God is about when we make statements like this?

0

14

reply

Required fields are marked *

5

reply

Required fields are marked *

Lotte

October 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM

No, the real question is why do you think it IS a sin? Because the Bible says so? The Bible says a hell of a lot of things. It condones rape, slavery, pillage, infanticide and slaughter. It is probably one of the most misogynistic texts ever written. So you can either take it word for word as literal truth, in which case I think you need psychiatric help, or it's open to interpretation and thus the individual can take from it what they will.

I don't even know why I'm bothering - anyone that uses the Old Testament for moral guidance is beyond rational discussion.

0

brookeeve

October 25, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Why do I not believe that homosexuality is a sin?

There are countless instances of homosexuality occurring in nature within the different animal kingdoms. If you agree with the premise that God created the heavens and the earth, and all of the things within it, then you agree that God created homosexuals. Everything that God has created is good (1 Timothy 4:4, Genesis 1:31).

If you are one of those that believe that homosexuals are made, as I was taught within the Church, the we have to look at the instances which created homosexuals. Usually, the explanation is that homosexuals are "created" when a child is sexually molested. If that were so, than only sexually traumatized people would be homosexuals. I do not think that this is true.

Are homosexuals possessed by demons? (I have heard this explanation, also. It kind of makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.) If so, then all we would have to do is exorcise them and they would all go away. (I'm assuming that this has been tried by some idiot.)

Part of God's Law is that it holds true in every situation, not just the ones that we can find to be convenient for our own sense of superiority and holiness.

Again, I do not believe that homosexuality is a sin because I have not found the proof that it is wrong. The proof that you are offering seems to me to be more political than spiritual in the context of those verses.

However, I believe that hate, murder, idolatry, swearing by God's name to a lie, stealing, and adultery are sins. If a gay man cheats on the one that he has sworn an oath to, then that man is guilty of sin.

I apologize for insinuating you are Pharisaical. It makes me feel bad for people who are accused of that because I know that it hurts their feelings. If God has laid it on your heart to believe as you do, then listen to Him and not me. He has not given me the same conviction: but He has told me to love my neighbor, and as you are my brother or sister I only tell you to love your neighbor because this is what God has convicted me of very strongly.

0

anais

October 25, 2010 at 6:49 PM

I'm curious why you think that homosexuality goes against the spirit of Christianity. I'll say at the outset, as I'm sure you'd figure out from my comments, that I can't see readily how it does so. However, this is a genuine question. I'd absolutely welcome a thoughtful response.

0

brookeeve

October 25, 2010 at 7:46 PM

This is going to seem really random, so just stick with me for a little while, okay?

First, I am going to use the analogy of God's commandments against food, because it is easily understood and because I believe that it contains details that are important to how we should interpret His laws. To live in perfect accordance with God's plans using food, The Torah lists some 700 laws about what can be and cannot be eaten and how food should be eaten. If taken into context of 2,000 years ago, given the climate and food preservation capabilities of the nomadic Middle Eastern tribes, each of these laws makes perfect sense. Don't eat shellfish, 'cause you live in the middle of a desert. Don't drink milk with meat because milk can cover the scent and taste of spoiled meat. All of these laws make perfect sense then, but not so much now. We have discovered refrigeration, we have discovered 8 billion preservatives, we know more about bacteria and viruses and what makes people sick.

To continue in this vein, it would make perfect sense for God to also outlaw homosexuality among his nomadic people who have a very long history of war. How are babies going to be made in ancient times without the benefits of artificial insemination? How is He going to keep his religion pure without outside influences if His people aren't having babies? This makes perfect sense in the context of history to a people who have legitimate reason to be frightened of annihilation... and we could look at the fate of other people who celebrated homosexuality in those times (the Spartans are one of those groups that come to mind).

Next, let's fast forward 500 years to the time of Jesus Christ. Why doesn't Jesus talk about homosexuality? Did it not exist in the ancient Roman empire? (I challenge you to find me a grown-up history book about the Roman empire where some guy isn't bonkin' some other guy.) Homosexuality was rampant during the time of the Caesars. It was a huge and controversial subject then. In fact, Roman historian Suetonius made lots and lots of money writing Enquirer-esque stories about The Twelve Caesars and their lurid scandals. Jesus would have known about this because he was a learned scholar. Why didn't he talk about it?

October 25, 2010 at 8:28 PM

If I may join in....in response to Post 45.2.2.1.1 and following:

I believe homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. The Bible is not to be taken entirely literally or entirely interpretively, it is a combination of both. It does not condone rape, slavery, pillage, infanticide, slaughter, or misogyny, and I could go on for pages why, but most of the time it boils down to the text being misunderstood and misinterpreted because things were different in Biblical times, it was a specific setting, etc.

The Old Testament is not where one should go for moral instruction, and I realize now that I probably should not have quoted it, but that does not mean that all moral aspects of it are to be ignored.

Maybe it’s true that homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdoms; but are we animals? Like I said in a few posts below, just because something occurs in nature does not make in natural; it does not make it morally right.

God created people, He did not create their sin. The human body is good; the sin that man chose to allow to permeate him is not—homosexuality is “not good”.

I don’t see why “how homosexuals are made” is relevant; homosexuality is a sin, and sin is in man’s nature, thus that’s where it comes from.

No proof that it is wrong? Homosexuality is not natural. "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’?" (Matthew 19:4-5) “One flesh” meaning sexual intercourse; homosexuality is an immoral act based on the perversion of a natural function. It’s also very clearly condemned in Romans 1. Again, Paul writes, “…the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful…” (verse 27) How much clearer do you need?

I am glad that you are a Christian and that you seem strong in your faith, I am simply trying to show you that homosexuality goes against the Bible.

As in the verses above (Matthew 19:4-5) say, Jesus says plainly how one man and one woman was created in the beginning—not two men, not two women—and the two are to become one. This is natural, this is good and right; homosexual relationships are not.

October 25, 2010 at 2:02 PM

I think the issue is where it takes place.Surely the church will not knowingly allow adultery , rape and murder to take place in the church itself. So similarly the church will not knowingly allow this exchange of vows between the gay couple in the church. But having said that , if the same gay couple were hounded by anti-gays and try to seek sanctuary in the church, I'm sure the church will not chase them out.

I don't mean to nitpik. I'm not nitpiking in response directly to you personally but rather furthering the dialogue.

Although people here have suggested that churches surely wouldn't permit certain things within its confines even as simulated reality, churches have permitted simulations of what would be deemed sinful acts. For example, murder: Iris is the most recent one that comes to mind because it was just so graphic.

Secondly, folks also have bandied adultery as an equivalent to homosexuality. I think someone else tried to point this out elsewhere but they are not analogous. Homosexuality is deemed sinful for the very love between the partners. Adultery is deemed sinful not because of the love itself but because of the breach in trust and the hurt it inflicts. Even the gravity of adultery as a sin has changed historically with the decline of the institution of polygamy (I'm just pointing out historical factors, lest anyone misread that I'm advocating polygamy) and with the greater recognition of the legitimacy of divorces, which adds additional twists to the hurt inherently inflicted by choosing adultery over dissolution of marriage.

In case anyone points out that those who choose homosexuality hurt others who love them, that's probably where I couldn't maintain dialogue since I believe that sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice and that those who would be hurt need to reexamine whether they truly love and accept their beloveds.

I am glad to learn that the drama chose the route of acceptance, at least on the mom's part.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

47 Azure

October 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM

I don't want to fight and I'm not saying that my opinion is infallible; I just wanted to put some thoughts out there.

The Christian church welcomes any and all, regardless of what they've done or who they are--if they repent. Homosexuality goes against the beliefs of the Jeju Island church, and thus they didn't allow such a scene to be shot. Many think that Christians love everyone and so attack them when an incident occurs that appears that they "don't"--but Christians still love the *person*; however, they hate the *sin* that the person commits. And if that person/people continue to openly, knowingly offend the church's beliefs, they can't allow that in their building. They believe that homosexuality is wrong, but they're not trying to force it down your throat or preach to you--don't they have the right to impress their beliefs on their own property?

Also, to the Yong Ha quote--"t’s a sin to hate, but how can it be a sin to love? No matter who it is." If love is not a sin, then why are extramarital affairs strongly condemned? They're glorified in dramas, but if your spouse cheated on you, wouldn't you be absolutely disgusted (among other things)? Even though your spouse truly loves another person, it's still shameful of him/her to do so. That's a similar, though not perfect or exact, comparison to how Christians view homosexuality.

Lastly, the Bible does speak about homosexuality very clearly: "....For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men...." (Romans 1:26-27)

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination...." (Leviticus 20:13)

0

24

reply

Required fields are marked *

Lotte

October 25, 2010 at 3:42 PM

"When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 20:14)

"If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to be set free, as male slaves are. If she is sold to someone who intends to make her his wife, but he doesn't like her, then she is to be sold back to her father;" (Exodus 21: 7-9)

Are we REALLY going to start busting out Biblical qutoes? Because that's rape and sexual slavery right there and I've got a lot more where they came from. The Bible is full of misogyny, incest, infanticide, slavery, rape and slaughter. There's a reason a lot of Christians no longer take it word for word as literal truth: because they are sane and rational and have brains and are using them.

October 25, 2010 at 5:12 PM

Thank you, I needed that - it makes some of the rage go away!

0

1

reply

Required fields are marked *

Viola

October 25, 2010 at 5:57 PM

Watch the video I posted, post #37, it will make all the rage go away.Trust me, I am speaking from experience right now. :)

0

Laeah

October 25, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I'm sorry, but as a Christian, I want to refute this.

Yes, I agree that we should love the person and hate the sin. I also think that it's none of our business to judge someone and stop them from going to church because they sin. We ALL sin constantly... should we not be allowed to go to church because of that? Our sin is different from theirs, but it doesn't make it any better or worse. Sin is sin. None of us are perfect.

We also cannot know their own relationship with God.

I think that the church can do what it wants.. but they could have filmed it elsewhere and it would have been fine too.

I don't believe you understand the real idea of Christianity. NO ONE can live up to the Old Testament.. that is why Jesus came. He died in order to protect us from that because we BELIEVE. Not because we are perfect.

Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40 NIV).

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:1-4)

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (Matthew 7:1)

0

14

reply

Required fields are marked *

anais

October 25, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Thanks for trying to live up to the core ideals of Christianity.

0

13

reply

Required fields are marked *

Azure

October 25, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Since there are some out there who are truly willing to listen and to consider what I say, I will continue.

In response to Post 47.1 and following:

If you would prefer that I note use Biblical quotes, I won’t, and I realize now that perhaps quoting from the Old Testament was a mistake; thank you, Laeah for pointing that out. The verses that you presented are, at face value, shocking and horrifying. But read with proper understanding of the context and customs of the time, they make sense. I won’t get into them now, since that will simply take longer and is deviating from the main issue.

I have never seen any scientific proof that homosexuality is part of one’s genetic make-up. Being gay is not natural; just because it occurs in nature does not make it natural. A natural sexual desire is a desire that serves to accomplish a sexual goal in the primitive order of things; i.e., “making babies”. The anatomy of male and female bodies also attests to this; each gender’s body is not meant to have a sexual relationship with the same gender, because it serves no purpose. However, even if homosexuality were natural, that still doesn’t make it morally right. Does a natural tendency towards violence justify assault? Does a natural desire for reward justify lying? We are not animals, we are human beings protected from our natures by morality. The difference between “just doing what comes naturally” and principled self-restraint is called civilization.

As I said, the adultery example was not exact or perfect, only used to compare, however slightly, how some people like myself feel towards homosexuality.

Open-mindedness does not mean that you accept any and every opinion, only that you carefully evaluate them to see if they have any truth. After that has been done, than to reject is perfectly fine. But to shoot down another’s opinions without reason or logic is pure stubbornness, and shows weakness in one’s own opposing opinions.

I believe that I have defended my “opinion” sanely and rationally. Many things drive kids to suicide and others to murder, but that does not make the entirety of the opinions behind them wrong. If I committed suicide or murder, would that then make all ridicule towards gays acceptable?

October 25, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Azure, you're right that Jesus chastised those he considered self-righteous false believers. But he was Jesus. Per Christianity, he is the ultimate authority and could stand firm in his judgment.

More importantly, Azure, what seems to be at issue is whether or not homosexuality is equivalent to, say, the theft you just mentioned. That theft directly hurt that old lady and indirectly others, including the thief. How does two people with the same set of XX or XY loving one another hurt others? (If the answer is their kids, family, etc., I think those family members need to learn to love more purely, less selfishly, and more courageously.) That is the part I can't get my head around. I'm putting this out here because this is predicated on what are the irreducible differences between our respective positions: the naturalness of homosexuality, the inviolability of Church canon/the Bible as the authoritative word of God, and consequently the blanket assignation of homosexuality as a sin.

What I've learned in my life is that religions (again, the institution, not the same as even though inextricable from personal faith) are man-made, that the holiest scriptures are not without man's imprint, and that nature (notice without capital N) is infinitely diverse and without premeditation.

0

Rossi

October 25, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Actually there have been scientific studies done on whether there is a "gay" gene. While further studies will need to be conducted, there is one specific study in which gay participants are shown pictures of different people, both males and females. When gay guys are shown pictures of men, parts of their brain lighted up which proved that biologically, their brain is wired to react to people of the same sex. So if you're saying that it's not natural to be gay, you're saying that biologically, there is no evidence to substantiate homosexuality, which this study refute.

I also have problems with you defining being gay as not morally right because this has the assumption that only Christianity and its doctrines have the basis to judge whether something is moral or not. I'm not Christian, so why must I adopt your religion's code of morality?

0

anais

October 25, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I was really hoping we could avoid delving into the scientific basis for homosexuality because genomic science is currently not advanced enough to pinpoint either one gene, a set of genes, or the interaction of genes with environmental factors that may be give rise to same-sex desire. And it may never be possible, given how complex sexuality is. We aren't even at the stage of being able to say with 100% certainty whether gene X on chromosome A leads to straight hair, so let's forego trying to furnish conclusive scientific proof. It's a red herring for now. It ought to be enough to take what is as is, that homosexual desire does exist. People can debate its merits/morality in accordance with their worldview, but let's leave science out of this until science is able to speak for itself.

0

Azure

October 25, 2010 at 11:25 PM

Laeah was saying that we should imitate Christ, and I wanted to point out that Christ was not all accepting and all tolerating of those who were purposefully against him. I know that Jesus is perfect and we are most definitely not, but when we know something is wrong, via the Bible, then we are to act against it like Christ did. Christians are not to be condescending, hateful, or bash people over the head with God’s Word, but we are also not to just sit by and “tolerate” evil.

That was an example; homosexuality is not a direct equivalent to theft—in my opinion, it is much worse. Homosexuality may seem “right” because it’s just “two people in love”, but it’s not natural, it’s not right, it is not meant to be. Would it be alright if I married my dog? How about my computer? You would call me an idiot, right? Why? Because marriage was not meant for a man and an animal. Marriage was not meant for man and technology. Marriage was meant for a man and a woman only; the male and female bodies attest to it clearly. If homosexuality was natural, then men would be able to have babies, and women wouldn’t need men to have babies—but it’s not like that, because that’s not how it’s supposed to be. Let me ask you something—can you think of something perverse? Anything at all? Please name it.

That is true for all religions—except Christianity. It is from God, and the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through people; the tainted sinfulness of man cannot be seen in it.

I find it contradictory how you say “infinitely diverse and without premeditation”. If a paint can randomly drops from two stories high, what will happen? It will go splat. There will be a big mess on the floor. Right? But what happens if Michelangelo takes that paint can and a brush? There will be beautiful art, right? Anything that is random is usually far from beautiful, and never intricately complex and perfect in its design. How then can there be infinite, amazing diversity in nature in all the world that works together through thousands of systems in perfect harmony, just randomly?

To Rossi, that study isn’t exactly infallible proof of a gay gene. If you read my posts above, I explained how homosexuality isn’t natural. As for why I believe homosexuality is wrong on Christian principles, my faith is who I am, so I had to include it. You can ignore those parts if you disagree.

0

Aya

October 26, 2010 at 12:59 AM

Did you just compare homosexuality and two human beings in love with each other wirh a human being married to a dog? Or a computer?

Wow.

0

anais

October 26, 2010 at 1:43 AM

I think this will be my last comment on this topic because it is going in a closed loop, and I mean that mutually. Our basic premises are irreconcilable. You're putting forth arguments that are flawed per my worldview and I must be doing the same per yours.

Probably the most fundamental difference is that you are Christian and I explicitly rejected it.

Secondly, you accept the Bible as the word of God. I do not.

It is from God, and the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through people; the tainted sinfulness of man cannot be seen in it.

Although I'm no Biblical scholar, I'm aware of some of the historical debates, the political wrangling, and other human agenda that has shaped what is now regarded as the Bible. As such, I cannot agree with your position that human imperfection in no way had a hand in shaping the Bible. The sheer fact that it uses human language, a limited medium, reflects its imperfection. Never mind that it's been subject to translation upon translation upon translation and that even the original wasn't written in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus would have used. Any scholar of literature, language, and culture can attest to the pitfalls of translation.

As such, I do not accept the Bible literally. I approach it as a document that one must read with its historicity in mind. And consequently, the verses on homosexuality I cannot take at face value. And I certainly have a hard time being told that homosexuality is evil. I admit I have to fight the impulse to turn right back and say that anyone who'd say that is themselves perpetrating evil. I can't understand how you can't see the hatefulness inherent in such a position and how that hatefulness goes against the core spirit of Christianity, but I also understand that you approach the Bible very differently and must accept that you see differently.

I know that Jesus is perfect and we are most definitely not, but when we know something is wrong, via the Bible, then we are to act against it like Christ did. Christians are not to be condescending, hateful, or bash people over the head with God’s Word, but we are also not to just sit by and “tolerate” evil.

And I've never understood how anyone thinks that it's analogically sound to reduce love between same sex partners to bestiality, or to inanimate objects. But I am not calling you an idiot. There's a huge difference between saying the logic of your argument is unsound and calling someone an idiot. And marriage - be it same sex or hetero - is a whole different topic that I in no way broached, nor thought to broach.

That was an example; homosexuality is not a direct equivalent to theft—in my opinion, it is much worse. Homosexuality may seem “right” because it’s just “two people in love”, but it’s not natural, it’s not right, it is not meant to be. Would it be alright if I married my dog? How about my computer? You would call me an idiot, right? Why? Because marriage was not meant for a man and an animal. Marriage was not meant for man and technology. Marriage was meant for a man and a woman only; the male and female bodies attest to it clearly. If homosexuality was natural, then men would be able to have babies, and women wouldn’t need men to have babies—but it’s not like that, because that’s not how it’s supposed to be. Let me ask you something—can you think of something perverse? Anything at all? Please name it.

At this point, I'm losing the point you're trying to make, other than to pick up that you regard homosexuality perverse, which is quite contrary to my view of it.

I find it contradictory how you say “infinitely diverse and without premeditation”. If a paint can randomly drops from two stories high, what will happen? It will go splat. There will be a big mess on the floor. Right? But what happens if Michelangelo takes that paint can and a brush? There will be beautiful art, right? Anything that is random is usually far from beautiful, and never intricately complex and perfect in its design. How then can there be infinite, amazing diversity in nature in all the world that works together through thousands of systems in perfect harmony, just randomly?

I don't think you understood what I meant. It was a reference to evolution. And, while I'm not sure what you're trying to say regarding randomness of nature versus intentional art, but even the greatest artists would acknowledge that nature has produced beauty that mankind has endeavored so mightily to capture through art. Perhaps you were trying to make a point about Intelligent Design as opposed to my reference to evolution. If so, that would be yet another fundamental difference in our basic premises.

Humanity has debated and will continue to debate the points that have been raised here, so I say let us part ways and return this forum to its original purpose of delighting in the fabulosity that is k-drama.

0

Laeah

October 26, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Azure... we are talking about homosexuals who practice Christianity are we not? I don't think God would turn them away because they are gay if they want to believe.

Like Anais said, you are from a very different (In my view, wrong) belief system. You think that judgment is okay for YOU to do, where as I think the judgment belongs to God. I doubt I could ever change your mind nor could you change mine. I just hope that homosexuals out there don't feel excluded. I'm not going to tell them to leave church if they really want to go and worship.

“I think this will be my last comment on this topic because it is going in a closed loop, and I mean that mutually. Our basic premises are irreconcilable. You’re putting forth arguments that are flawed per my worldview and I must be doing the same per yours.”

If you think this conversation is going nowhere, then I agree that we should stop. As I said before, arguing for the sake of arguing accomplishes nothing, and I appreciate that you recognize the fact.

“Probably the most fundamental difference is that you are Christian and I explicitly rejected it. Secondly, you accept the Bible as the word of God. I do not. Although I’m no Biblical scholar, I’m aware of some of the historical debates, the political wrangling, and other human agenda that has shaped what is now regarded as the Bible. As such, I cannot agree with your position that human imperfection in no way had a hand in shaping the Bible. The sheer fact that it uses human language, a limited medium, reflects its imperfection. Never mind that it’s been subject to translation upon translation upon translation and that even the original wasn’t written in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus would have used. Any scholar of literature, language, and culture can attest to the pitfalls of translation.”

If you don’t accept the Bible as the Word of God, that’s fine. But I do believe that the Bible is the holy, inspired, perfect Word of God, for various reasons. It’s true that there have been many debates and whatnot about what went into the Bible, but it was for good reason as it was to find out what texts were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and which were not. The limited medium of the human language does not render it imperfect—it makes our understanding of God limited, but it does not make that understanding wrong. Many things are usually lost in translations, but scholars have also compared a modern day English Bible to the original Hebrew and Greek, and have found it to be almost exactly the same.

“As such, I do not accept the Bible literally. I approach it as a document that one must read with its historicity in mind. And consequently, the verses on homosexuality I cannot take at face value. And I certainly have a hard time being told that homosexuality is evil. I admit I have to fight the impulse to turn right back and say that anyone who’d say that is themselves perpetrating evil. I can’t understand how you can’t see the hatefulness inherent in such a position and how that hatefulness goes against the core spirit of Christianity, but I also understand that you approach the Bible very differently and must accept that you see differently.”

Is lying wrong? Is murder? Is stealing? (Assuming for no good reason) Is it being hateful in saying that those things are wrong? No, it is a statement of fact. Is it wrong to be hateful of those *wrongs*, but not the people? I don’t think so. Not all hate is wrong; as a Christian, I should hate sin—Jesus did, and as has been stated before, we are to imitate Him. One of the core spirits of Christianity *is* love, and if I did not make it clear before, I love gay people! I abhor their homosexuality, but I love the people! Love has different facets, though. I love them so much that I want to explain to them and to all people how repulsive homosexuality is to God; I don’t want them to continue living in sin unknowingly. Think of it like constructive criticism; it’s not wrong and it helps, even though it might hurt the object of criticism. I am not attacking gay people; I do not hate them or am calling them evil, because I myself am the chief of sinners. I know that the sin in my life is evil and wrong and I’m working on that, and I wish to help others to at least be aware of their sins.

“And I’ve never understood how anyone thinks that it’s analogically sound to reduce love between same sex partners to bestiality, or to inanimate objects. But I am not calling you an idiot. There’s a huge difference between saying the logic of your argument is unsound and calling someone an idiot. And marriage – be it same sex or hetero – is a whole different topic that I in no way broached, nor thought to broach.”

My point was this—why is it okay for two people of the same gender to have a romantic love and not a person and a pet? What if it was taken one step further, and say a guy had sex with their dog. What a revolting idea! It is sick and perverse. But why? If the guy and his dog are really in love and aren’t hurting anybody, what’s wrong with it? It’s wrong because it’s an abuse of that man’s body; it wasn’t meant for an animal, it was meant for a woman and a woman only. My point is that it doesn’t matter if you’re in love with someone of your own gender; homosexuality is not right because it is not the natural order, that is, as one person put it, homosexuality is only one generation from extinction.

“At this point, I’m losing the point you’re trying to make, other than to pick up that you regard homosexuality perverse, which is quite contrary to my view of it.”

I apologize if I was confusing. I was trying to say that I believe homosexuality is perverse because, as the dictionary defines “perverse”, it is “willfully determined or disposed to go counter to what is expected or desired” and “turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper.” Homosexuality goes against nature (the male/female bodies), and the natural order/use of things.

“I don’t think you understood what I meant. It was a reference to evolution. And, while I’m not sure what you’re trying to say regarding randomness of nature versus intentional art, but even the greatest artists would acknowledge that nature has produced beauty that mankind has endeavored so mightily to capture through art. Perhaps you were trying to make a point about Intelligent Design as opposed to my reference to evolution. If so, that would be yet another fundamental difference in our basic premises.”

My point was to say, how did nature produce this beauty? Did it all just pop up out of some big bang a bazillion years ago? As with the example with the paint can, little complexity or beauty comes out of a random accident.

“Humanity has debated and will continue to debate the points that have been raised here, so I say let us part ways and return this forum to its original purpose of delighting in the fabulosity that is k-drama.”

If you would no longer like to continue, then I bid you farewell. I would only ask you that you consider some of the issues that I have raised and look into them more, because to have blind faith in anything is foolish. This has been a very enlightening experience; I thank you for your intelligent conversation.

“Azure… we are talking about homosexuals who practice Christianity are we not? I don’t think God would turn them away because they are gay if they want to believe.”

Let’s see what the Bible says and whether or not God will receive gays—Matthew 7:21, 15:8,9; Romans 1:18-32; Ephesians 5:5,6,11,12; 1 Timothy 1:3-10; James 2:19. I don’t think that there is such a thing as a homosexual Christian any more than a Christian assassin—homosexuality so clearly goes against the Word of God, against God’s intended design, that one cannot truly love God or strive to please Him and be gay.
“To believe” is not the only thing that comprises a Christian. If someone “believes” but lives life as a murderer and thief willingly and without a thought to sin because God will forgive him no matter what he does, is that person truly a Christian? Most definitely not. God does not turn away anyone; He offers salvation to the whole world—but only if they are willing to confess their sins, repent of them, and strive to live in a way that pleases the Lord, as in, perfectly. Now, no one is perfect or will ever be perfect, but Christians strive to be because Jesus was and we are to imitate Him.

“Like Anais said, you are from a very different (In my view, wrong) belief system. You think that judgment is okay for YOU to do, where as I think the judgment belongs to God. I doubt I could ever change your mind nor could you change mine. I just hope that homosexuals out there don’t feel excluded. I’m not going to tell them to leave church if they really want to go and worship.”

October 26, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I'd really like to see the scripture that lists out the level of "evil" each sin belongs to.

It doesn't exist.

0

Rossi

Of course using God as an argument is invalid, but for this case, it is not. Because this scene is taken in a church where they believe that it is a 'sin' to love someone of the same gender.

0

reply

Required fields are marked *

by javabeans

1 djeedjes

October 25, 2010 at 5:13 AM

2 Gigi

October 25, 2010 at 5:13 AM

October 25, 2010 at 8:54 AM

3 Me2me

October 25, 2010 at 5:17 AM

October 25, 2010 at 5:31 AM

October 25, 2010 at 6:10 AM

October 25, 2010 at 6:57 AM

October 25, 2010 at 7:50 AM

October 25, 2010 at 7:56 AM

October 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM

October 25, 2010 at 8:34 AM

October 25, 2010 at 9:28 AM

October 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM

October 25, 2010 at 5:11 PM

October 25, 2010 at 5:25 PM

October 25, 2010 at 7:33 PM

October 25, 2010 at 8:11 PM

October 26, 2010 at 7:09 AM

July 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM

October 25, 2010 at 10:42 AM

October 25, 2010 at 2:16 PM

October 25, 2010 at 10:28 PM

October 25, 2010 at 11:12 PM

December 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM

October 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM

October 25, 2010 at 9:28 AM

October 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM

October 25, 2010 at 12:18 PM

October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

October 25, 2010 at 2:13 PM

October 25, 2010 at 6:26 PM

November 18, 2016 at 10:07 PM

4 Anonymous

October 25, 2010 at 5:18 AM

5 Anonymous

October 25, 2010 at 5:18 AM

6 Sere

October 25, 2010 at 5:23 AM

7 -_-

October 25, 2010 at 5:34 AM

8 Porcelain

October 25, 2010 at 5:37 AM

9 Ohemgee

October 25, 2010 at 5:44 AM

October 25, 2010 at 5:47 AM

October 25, 2010 at 12:59 PM

10 StevenVu

October 25, 2010 at 6:01 AM

11 Snikki

October 25, 2010 at 6:10 AM

October 25, 2010 at 8:08 AM

October 25, 2010 at 2:26 PM

October 26, 2010 at 4:10 PM

October 4, 2011 at 8:27 PM

April 30, 2014 at 5:37 PM

December 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM

October 4, 2011 at 8:29 PM

12 Liz

October 25, 2010 at 6:31 AM

13 ar_arguably romantic

October 25, 2010 at 6:32 AM

14 staples

October 25, 2010 at 6:32 AM

October 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM

15 petirrojo

October 25, 2010 at 6:38 AM

October 25, 2010 at 7:07 AM

October 25, 2010 at 7:58 AM

October 25, 2010 at 8:53 AM

October 25, 2010 at 9:56 AM

October 25, 2010 at 3:28 PM

October 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM

October 25, 2010 at 9:33 AM

16 tooizzy

October 25, 2010 at 6:51 AM