LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The straw man is in because if I don't trust her anecdote I must believe that she's intentionally lying or there's a massive conspiracy going on, right? And it couldn't be just not trusting unverifiable sources?

edited 17th Apr '12 10:53:19 PM by Vehudur

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No.

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

I told you that the various Christian denominations don't have some sort of shared money pool. You said 'I don't believe you'. I'm... really not sure how you can think I'd lie about that.

Be not afraid...

From the previous page:

Um, no it does not?

It says that homosexual acts are not to be approved.*

That does not mean that homosexuals should be persecuted. If we were to persecute everybody who does acts that are not to be approved according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, well, we'd persecute basically everybody, Catholic or non-Catholic.

Especially since you conveniently forgot to mention 2358 — if you did so on purpose, I'd say that that was rather intellectually dishonest of you, but I want to believe that you found the quote of 2357 in isolation and it was a honest mistake:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

You may think that this point of view is incorrect, because there is no reason to think that homosexuality is "objectively disordered". And as I said, I would personally agree.

But you have no grounds at all to say that this doctrine advocates "persecuting homosexuals to your heart's content".

At least over here, gay bashers generally belong to the far right — neofascists, white supremacists and so on. Catholics — even very conservative ones — may say that homosexuality is a sin, but they are not going to throw rocks at people who "look gay" or anything like that.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:02:15 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That's informative and mature.

Does your church list its expenses publicly? If not, you can't know what they're spending it on. I have no reason to trust them based off only your anecdote.

This is helpful. Thanks.

The WBC is not the only anti-LGBT element. In fact, the upper tiers of the catholic church themselves are anti-LGBT, based off many of the statements released by important bishops. Some of the money you give the church inevitably makes its way to these upper tiers.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:03:23 PM by Vehudur

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, because the Catholic Church is definitely secretly funding the Westboro Baptist Church. That is obviously happening.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

They are definitely in league.

GIGO.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:02:16 PM by inane242

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

They are certainly against the legalization of gay marriage. And it is definitely possible that part of the money that I give to the Church is used, let's say, for campaigns against it and so on.

I am, well, not exactly happy about it.

But much more of the money goes towards initiatives I approve of — paying the stipend of my uncle, for example , but not only — so all things considered, I think that I will keep doing so when I can.

By the way, "fundie" is a rather specific term — it describes a certain kind of fundamentalist Protestant Christianity. It is a particular interpretation of Christianity (Biblical literalism, YEC, and so on...) that has nothing whatsoever to do with the one that Catholicism supports. That's what I was thinking about when I've read you saying that all Churches support "fundies"; and no, I am fairly sure that Catholicism does not fund these groups, hence the misunderstanding.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:18:13 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The key word here is "unjust". So the church opposes "unjust" discrimination. It implies that there is such thing as "just" discrimination against homosexual people. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI himself says that gay marriage is a threat to "human dignity" and "the future of humanity itself". Those are pretty strong words.

Things that are a threat to the future of humanity includes overpopulation, warfare, disease and global warming. If you label a group of fellow human beings as a threat to humanity, what does that imply should be done to them?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Didn't we already have this discussion just a few pages ago?

In Pope Benedict's worldview, homosexual acts are unacceptable and contrary to human dignity, and not to be approved; and yes, if something which is contrary to human dignity is accepted as natural*

then this is a threat to the future of humanity itself.

"Discrimination", literally, means just "distinction". From the point of view which I am talking about, homosexual people are "discriminated" in the sense that sexual relationships with people of their preferred genders are not approved of; but a heterosexual person who would want to have a sexual relationship with a person of the same gender, for whatever reason, would be every bit as "discriminated". And frankly, not all "discrimination" is automatically unjust. If for whatever reason I had an impulse to do something that society disapproves of for valid reasons (feel free to provide your own example, there are many possible ones), then in a sense I would be "discriminated". But it would be perfectly legitimate for society to "discriminate" me by not allowing me — or anybody else, for that matter — to do what I'd like to do. Society, however, would not be allowed to beat me up or harass me or so on.

The question, ultimately, is if homosexual acts are contrary to human dignity. If they are, then the worldview that I described is not only just, but actually very mild and forgiving; but if they are not, then it is unjust.

What does the quote I provided outright state should be done to them?

EDIT: And while we are at it, Benedict's quote states that homosexual marriage is a threat to humanity's future, not that homosexual people are. The quote, to be more precise, says

Words, as it happens, have meanings. And occasionally — just occasionally — you cannot substitute a word with another and keep the meaning of the sentence unvaried. Who'd have thought?

edited 18th Apr '12 11:08:08 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Discriminiation is the differential treatment of an individual based on that individual's actual or perceived membership in a particular group. It involves restricting a particular person or group of people from rights and privileges enjoyed by others based solely on that person's characteristics, not because of anything that person has done.

Sentencing criminals to jail because they committed a crime is not discriminatory. Sending members of one race to jail while letting those of another race off completely for the same crime is disciminatory.

A fundamental element of justice (at least in the Western world) is the idea that the law should apply to all people equally, without regard to race, sex, class, religion and so on. Discrimination is therefore inherently unjust, by that line of reasoning.

So, to state that it is ever just to permit discrimination against any group is a contradiction. Those who advocate for laws that grant certain rights to heterosexuals and deny those same rights to homosexuals are advocating discrimination and injustice.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

The WBC and the Catholic Church have a lot in common but then I am biased because I am a member of the One True Faith Anglican Church.

Dutch Lesbian

Catholics are not a monolith.

A roundup of most of the major Anti-gay groups in the US.

Theologically speaking the WBC and Roman Catholocism are as about as opposite as you can get as I recall. The WBC believes in extreme Calvinism, all who are going to hell is pre-determined and there is nothing a "sinner" can do to stave off the wrath of God. Catholocism is all about atoning for ones sins and earning God's grace through good works.

Now they're similar on the issue of homosexuality (though of course the WBC takes it to sickening extremes) but the Roman Catholic Church does it out of a strong sense of tradition while the WBC does it out of the relatively recent practice of reading everything in the Bible "literally".

I'd say 90% (which I believe is a conservative estimate but I'm just making these statistics up off the top of my head) of the money Catholics collect are used to aid the poor, whether in your own country or across the world. The remaining 10% is mostly funding the infrastructure of the Church (which includes schools and hospitals as well as the actual church buildings). I'd say a tiny amount of money the Church spends goes toward opposing gay rights while that activity is central to the activity of the WBC.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

According to that definition, the Catholic Church is not discriminating homosexual people by denying them marriage or disapproving of homosexual relationships. Nobody is allowed to marry somebody of the same gender, and everybody is thought of to have committed a sin if they have sex with somebody of the same gender. Groups have nothing to do with this.

"Law should be applied to all people equally" does not imply that law should inconvenience everybody to the same degree.

Also, in the case of the Catholic Church "opposing gay rights" means "opposing gay civil marriage" — which I disagree with, but is miles away from "harassing gay people and thanking God for their deaths."

edited 18th Apr '12 12:04:19 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yeah not seeing how letting two people of the same gender is inconveniencing anyone

Dutch Lesbian

Not allowing same-sex marriage clearly inconveniences gay people and not heterosexual people, in general. But this is not discrimination, according to Lawyerdude's definition: nobody is allowed to marry somebody of the same gender, no matter their sexuality.

EDIT: the arrows were wrong — in that passage I was replying to Lawyerdude's post, not to yours. Sorry for the confusion.

edited 18th Apr '12 12:03:46 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It also discriminates about Life's forgotten people in this debate, those people who are attracted to both/either gender/sex

Dutch Lesbian

I agree that opposition to gay marriage is wrong, and am hoping the next Pope is more progressive on this issue (that tends to be a pattern in Catholocism actually). But I will not stop donating to charity because a tiny amount of that money goes into opposing gay marriage.

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.

Here, let me edit that for you:

That might not be discrimination. By defining what you're doing so narrowly, you're avoiding the problem. The discrimination exists because only non-heterosexuals are kept from marrying people of their preferred genders.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

On the "nobody is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender" thing, that is discriminatory. It's discriminatory on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. It would be just as discriminatory to prohibit people from marrying others of a different race, or of a different religion. Those laws would discriminate on the basis of race and religion.

Sure, the Catholic Church wouldn't perform a marriage ceremony between two open atheists, nor could they be required to do so by law. But that wouldn't give it the right to support laws banning all marraiges except those between Catholics.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Well, if by "discrimination" you mean "not being allowed to do what nobody else is allowed to do", sure.

If everybody is allowed to have chocolate cookies but not raisin cookies, and I really really hate chocolate and really really like raisins, I am not being discriminated. Of course, one could say that saying that allowing people to eat chocolate cookies but not raisin cookies is a stupid rule, and that people should be allowed to eat whatever cookie they want; but that's a whole different issue.

edited 18th Apr '12 12:13:34 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

So you want to go totally non-contextual. Okay, fine. But even then it's discrimination. "Opposite gender" after all is already contextual, so totally non-contextual it would be: Men have to marry women, and women have to marry men. Thus, it's gender discriminating.

edited 18th Apr '12 12:14:35 PM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I think I'm missing your point, Carc, because that still seems like discrimination to me. In that scenario I would say you are being discriminated against because of your love of raisin cookies.

edited 18th Apr '12 12:16:13 PM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

But doesn't that simply turn "discrimination" into "not being allowed to do something I want to do", then?

If we go by Lawyerdude's definition of

then in that example, there is no differential treatment: nobody is allowed to eat raisin cookies, just like no males — heterosexual or homosexual or whatever — are allowed to marry males and no females are allowed to marry females.

Of course, a rule does not need to be discriminatory in this sense in order to be unfair and unjustified.

edited 18th Apr '12 12:19:06 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.