LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Let's forget about the data you're ignoring. Let's forget about all the Christians whose example you handwave off.

This statement is galling because it's unfair. 'How so Starship?' Well, let me show you

That's but one example. I could've inserted "Gays" or "Bisexuals" or "Muslims" or "Canadians" or any number of groups sufficiently large enough that you cannot label them as a whole. You and I both know that if you posted that you'd be banned in under 52 seconds.

The bottom line is this, even if the data didn't constantly make your assertions of "Christians as a whole" false, the bottom line is you cannot generalize any group of any sufficient size.

And L Mage, again, it isn't "our job" to fix people's perceptions. I ask you this before, Is it your job to make people not perceive all gay people a certain way? Yes? No?

Is it my job to ensure that people don't think all black men aren't gangbangers that barely speak functional English? Am I responsible for the overall perception of Americans? Are you?

Who are you to make that determination? Get it straight dude, I don't you owe a goddamn thing. Nobody does.

I am not responsible for how you perceive black people, or New Yorkers, or Christians, or anybody else. You are. It's my job to live my life, nothing else.

@Starship: I know it wasn't directed at me, but as for the "I ask you this before, Is it your job to make people not perceive all gay people a certain way? Yes? No?"

My answer is Yes, it is our job to get out there and present a positive image. People aren't going to stop believing gay people aren't -insert negative stereotype- unless they can actually witness gay people acting in a positive way. So I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Christians to be responsible for cleaning up their image.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:00:52 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Actually, I'd have to nitpick that point, DG. I wouldn't say that it's your job, per se. I'd say it's a good thing to do, but you don't have an obligation to do so. L Mage is asserting that it's morally wrong not to do that, which is something I strongly disagree with. It's nobody's fault but the ignorant people who are doing the generalizing. Judging people who don't confront them doesn't accomplish anything.

In any case, many Christians think that cleaning up their image can be done simply by not being actively homophobic and minding their own business. Positive examples can be set without going out and campaigning.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:09:01 PM by Boredman

EDIT: Brought up the wrong source.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:11:10 PM by dRoy

For the record, I think that it is the responsibility of black people to denounce the gangbanger culture, in the same way that it's the responsibility of white people to denounce white racists.

So, I'm not really sure what that analogy up there is trying to say.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:15:02 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

It's like saying that, until there are massive movements against "gangbanger culture", that it's okay to judge all blacks as criminals before you meet them. Generalizations like that are never justified, even if a majority of the group is like that. There's still a massive number of people in the group (Around 75-100 million to be precise) who defy that generalization, making the assumptions useless.

And simply put, nobody is responsible for the actions of others. If people want to judge you for others' actions, just because you share a skin color or a religion, then that's their fault for being ignorant.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:26:46 PM by Boredman

Oh, is that what the original point was?

It's certainly not okay to assume all black people are gang bangers just because the rejection of gang banger culture isn't sufficiently large, in the same way it's not okay to call me a racist just because liberals don't bitch enough about racists.

@Bored, Starship

I have a great deal of respect for both you, but never in my life have I heard more utter bullshit then "It's not our responsibility to insure we are seen the way we want to be seen, it's the responsibility of the person looking to pretend they see what we want them to see".

Of Course it's my duty, and the duty of every LGBT person, to insure that we are presenting a positive and accurate image of ourselves to the world. Of course it's our duty to deal with those in the community doing harm to our core cause: the fight for equal rights. Just like it's the duty of the White people to renounce Racism when they see it, the duty of pro-Feminism men to call out other men on sexism, just like it was the duty of that Priest in Germany to speak out when they came for the Communists, the Jews, the Catholics and so on.

I firmly believe and will always firmly believe that the passive allowance of evil is itself evil You* have people out there using your Religion as a platform for hatred and malice, and you want to quietly sit at home and mind your own business keeping your views to yourself, "set a good example" and nothing more? Fine, that is your right.

But then you do NOT have the right to complain when we start pushing back against the enemy attacking us and don't pause to take into consideration people we can not see, cannot here, and could not be bothered to actually commit themselves to helping us.

• Note: The "You" here refers to "Modert" Christian in general no specific person.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:28:32 PM by LMage

I agree with that insofar as noone should judge an entire demographic based on the way some of the members act.

I think that Christians do have a responsibility to try and counteract the actions of bigots, but saying that they're morally wrong for not doing so is massively overstating that responsibility, mainly because there are so many different groups out there that you can't focus on doing that all at once. Both sides of the issue have responsibilities. The Christians have a degree of responsibility to make the rational members of their group visible, but on the flip side observers should get a good sampling of the group as a whole before making statements about it.

I can agree with the idea behind this, but here's the problem: It is completely and utterly impossible for every Christian to actively make an effort to counter every evil. You seem to be coming into this with an expectation that every Christian who isn't anti-LGBT ought to prioritize LGBT rights, which simply isn't a reasonable expectation. Homophobic bigotry is a horrible evil, but it's only one among many, and not every Christian is going to be able to actively oppose it. There are millions of Christians out there who are too busy combattting other forms of evil; anti-poverty, anti-racism, anti-classism, helping orphans, helping the sick, feeding the hungry, providing education for those who can't afford it, etc. People dedicate their entire lives to fighting those evils, and you seem to be writing them all off because they aren't combatting the specific evil that you care most about. I may be misinterpreting your position (and probably am), but it feels like if I take your argument to it's logical conclusion you want every Christian to drop what they're doing in favor of LGBT rights, which simply isn't going to happen because a lot of us are just as if not more concerned with fixing other problems.

Case in point this

bothers me because a lot of those people who you complain aren't helping you only aren't helping you because they're busy helping other people. You're writing off all the good they may be doing simply because they aren't fighting for your particular issue. It starts to sound like "if they aren't fighting specifically for LGBT rights, they aren't doing any good".

edited 8th Sep '12 1:41:49 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Yes he does. You're trying to enforce a with us or against us attitude and people have every right to refuse to partake of such attitudes. Being a bigot back doesn't prevent bigotry.

So you're not only going to push back against the enemy, but also their whole kind? That's complete bullshit and you know it. Not to mention the fact that half of the US's gay rights supporters are Christians. But oh no, they're not TRUE Christians because they aren't devout enough.

@Deboss

Except we aren't the ones that made the rules: The Church is the one that's declared a Holy War on Gay Marriage, we aren't the ones destroying lives with "Repaireritive Therapy", or encouraging people to kidnap children from their families, or lobbying against anti-bullying laws that could have saved lives. People are being hurt, people are dying, and you* want to "mind you own business"? Fine, but excuse me if I fail to feel sorry because some people might to disapprove and look down on you for being a Christian.

If their Faith isn't important enough to them for them to fight for it then it's clearly not their faith at all.

• Note: Again, general You. No specific person in mind.

Then those "some people" are ignorant and should know better than to generalize like that. And "The Church" doesn't exist. There are dozens of different churches with different members and different views.

Hey guess what?

A very large number of Christians aren't doing that either.

Also, whether or not one wants to "defend" their faith from being associated with others' views does NOT determine whether they actually have that faith. What decides their faith is whether or not they fucking follow that faith. Stop fucking using No True Scotsman arguments.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:51:21 PM by Boredman

@Bored

And what could be more fundamental to fallowing a Faith based on compassion and good, then fighting hatred and evil?

And congratulations to all the people out there not destroying lives! They certainly deserve a medal *eyeroll*

@JT

I'm not saying every Modert Christian ever should be out marching at Pride. I'm saying that their should be an effort, clear, distinct, irrefutable, to speak out and against those who use the Christian Faith as a vehicle for hate. I have seen no evidence beyond isolated cases and occasional outliers.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:52:54 PM by LMage

Failing to fight an evil that many others are already doing a good job of fighting against does NOT make one part of that evil.

Well they certainly don't deserve to be lumped in with all of the people who are doing that.

"Modert[sic]" Christians often times DO campaign against homphobia, but not as Christians. They often express their views through secular means. One can be a Christian and not base all of their decisions on their faith.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:56:00 PM by Boredman

Why not fight against that evil?

It is though! If you have the power and means and cause to try and stop the deaths of innocents and don't then you are passively allowing it to go on, regardless of other efforts. If you see someone being crushed beneath a car, and a person trying to lift it off them and struggling but making headway you have no less of a responsibility to go and help lift it off them.

edited 8th Sep '12 1:59:15 PM by LMage

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

As long as the supposed good Christian men and women continue to do nothing to change the party line of the large churches and change the minds and hearts of the administration of their religion, then they allow evil to triumph.

I'm just gonna repost this, because I think it's still relevant:

So to reiterate: Just because someone isn't making a statement on LGBT rights doesn't mean that they aren't actively working against other passive evils in the world.

@L Mage: That's entirely true, but I don't think it captures the entire story. Yes, someone has the responsibility not to sit by...unless they're already doing something else that's equally or more important. If somebody is in a process of rescuing a group of babies from a burning building, I don't expect them to drop that to go help with the car.

I feel compelled to point out that people are working on that and just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we aren't trying. As earlier noted, the upper authorities are the ones that are most resistant to change. Just because they haven't changed yet doesn't mean people aren't trying to change them.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." is an entirely true statement, but it sounds like the groups "good men do nothing" and "good men who are doing things unrelated to this particular issue" are being conflated. Someone who works at a homeless shelter doesn't deserve to get lumped into the "do nothing" category because they aren't working towards a particular issue.

edited 8th Sep '12 2:29:54 PM by JapaneseTeeth

It's been a while since I posted in this thread but I felt people would find this interesting. The recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury had admitted that he did too little to prevent the Anglican Church splitting over homosexuality. Here is one quote that I feel is particularly important. "We've not exactly been on the forefront of pressing for civic equality for homosexual people and we were wrong about that,". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19528436

@JT

Look, I don't claim to be particularly well-versed in the affairs internal or external of Churches and the like beyond how they affect the LGBT community, because to be 100% honest I really don't care, I have enough to worry about. But that having been said, I fail to understand what is more pressing then what amounts to the destruction of lives and murder of innocents.

This makes me happy. :3

edited 8th Sep '12 2:43:56 PM by LMage

edited 8th Sep '12 2:55:55 PM by Boredman

Of course, the good old "How can you think about LGBT rights when all this other stuff is going on" argument. "You're not a priority. Stop being selfish and wait."

edited 8th Sep '12 2:59:41 PM by Morgikit

@Bored

Terrorism and the economy are generally not the Church's domain and while dealing with the suffering of foreign nations (to which I assume the genocide, oppression and famine refer) is always admirable it is generally considered good form to fix the problems in your own land before trying to fix the problems in others.

It will never stop baffling me.

edited 8th Sep '12 2:59:13 PM by LMage