LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Yeah I think we kinda dogpiled you there. Sorry about that.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Sorry if that was harsh. But assuming that the stance of a particular person or group of people is the official position of a much larger, more widespread organization is both an easy assumption to make, a tempting one, and often, a wildly inaccurate one. One thing to remind yourself when you are tempted to say "Christians are <this> or <that> is to consciously correct yourself to "This person is <this> or that>; his Christianity may, or may not, have a bearing on that." The most obnoxious are the ones who wrap themselves in their fait religion (their faith is irrelevant) as a shield.

I'll freely admit, there are a lot of Christian homophobes and assholes (of assorted other stripes) out there. But the truth is, most of them would still be homophobes or assholes of whatever stripe even of they weren't Christian. The class of "homophobes" is distressingly large. The class of "Christians" is huge. That there will be some overlap, in the class of "Christians who are also homophobes" is inevitable.

edited 8th Sep '12 6:26:39 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

A very true statement, this. But that's how "the Church" got to hatin' "The Gays" in the first place. Also how dictators come to power, and how Presidential Candidates gather votes from their party members.

The caveat to all that is that it isn't hard to someone who knows how to control and/or influence people. It's essentially what you're asking, and that's rather hard for your average person who runs around screaming their moral or ethical beliefs to anyone that'll hear to do.

Not impossible, mind you, just rather difficult.

edited 8th Sep '12 6:25:48 PM by Newfable

I get why you'd want Christians who ostensibly support gay rights to make themselves more visible and heard, step up to the plate, etc. Convincing someone to change their views is a whole different ballgame. Oppose, I can get behind. Change? If you mean in terms of "turn the tide" or "stem the flow", sure. Actually change people's minds? That's unlikely.

Holy sh*t, this thread exploded. What happened?

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Miscommunication.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

The best way to understand the nuance of what's going on is to read a shitload of history. The US is kind of an odd duck in how all these utterly disparate cultures developed and then got folded in to the same jurisdiction, and in particular how a good deal of the loudest ones are the product of surprisingly recent charismatic revivals in very specific areas and backgrounds. There's been some cultural cross-bleed over the decades, but less than one might expect. Go about 700 miles in any given direction and it's like you're in a completely different country.

It also really is important to understand the hierarchy going on within those denominations, and how it interacts with its consituency. It's rarely the lockstep entity one first thinks — with Catholics in particular (this being the one I'm personally most familiar with), the leadership is so far removed from the congregations that huge gulfs have formed. The southern denominations that are the most outspoken about this appear to be more based in force-of-personality rather than a monolith of authority, as they were breakaways from the Church of England while it was at its least wholesome.

That's not even getting into the grudge matches between them — one of the reasons the Vatican has been so reluctant to cave on contraception is because it would amount to admitting the Anglicans were right and lol that's unpossible.

If you want to even have a chance to change someone's mind, it is necessary to understand them. Blanket stereotypes don't do that — they just galvanize people against you.

edited 8th Sep '12 7:19:06 PM by Pykrete

But is it unreasonable to conclude that those who adhere to a religion follow its tenets and the teachings of its leaders? When an official denominational body issues a position statement on an issue, isn't it reasonable to think that a member of that denomination agrees? And if they don't isn't it on the members themselves to say that their church is wrong on that issue?

To me, whenever the Pope or any other religious leader says anything about anything, they are speaking on behalf of all of their followers, unless they say otherwise.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

,

Sorta, you forget that different people take different meanings out of those tenets and the teachings.

"To me, whenever the Pope or any other religious leader says anything about anything, they are speaking on behalf of all of their followers,."

I used to (when I was very young) have a similar belief regarding atheism, until I realized that not all atheists shared the beliefs of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

"unless they say otherwise."

You mean, unless you learn that they say otherwise.

edited 8th Sep '12 7:57:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

@Deviant

It's hardly unreasonable to conclude that when leaders speak they reflect the wishes of their followers, that is after all a leader's job is it not? A failure to do so means that there is something deeply flawed about the organization in question. Which is, again the organization's problem, not ours.

edited 8th Sep '12 7:59:24 PM by LMage

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

The Catholic Church is kind of different though. When the Pope speaks it's not based on what people in the church believe. In fact it's the opposite. He's telling them what to believe rather than taking their views into consideration.

Which, if I where a Christian, would be a sign that it's time to make with the revolution.

"You are never taller then when standing up for yourself"

I dunno if "deeply flawed" is the word I'd use. Maybe more like the organization in question is so huge as to render it impossible for a single man to dictate everyone's views.

That said, I think most Catholics do agree that any kind of sexuality other than hetero is a sin, and that line of thinking should be opposed.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:04:36 PM by Robotnik

Not unreasonable at all. Though it is unreasonable when you take that bit of logic and use it to judge them completely on a certain issue. Wasn't it Holmes that said that when one starts to make theories before getting all the facts that those that made the assumptions tailor the facts to suit their theories?

"I'm a member of X Christian Church," means that they're probably against gay marriage and all that jazz, but to assume they are as fact with only that given information is rather silly.

Maybe. I would assume that if a church body disagrees with what a pastor, missionary, bishop, pope, or other religious figure is toting as religious doctrine and dogma, that they'd naturally drift away and start their own denomination with their own opinions on the issue. And I'd also imagine that if a single church body (in a smaller community, say) is against what their own religious figurehead is saying about the subject, they'd just get rid of him somehow and put in another that's more "agreeable".

Exactly. Since the printing press, everyone's been able to make up their own minds about what to think about their own religion. Of course, it doesn't stop people from pooling together and coming to common conclusions, but even if a guy is going to say, "We're all going to believe in this now!", there's bound to be a few thousand that'll say, "Nah, I'm good with what I got," even in the face of irrefutable proof.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:09:27 PM by Newfable

Christianity is not only Catholic.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:07:57 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

I know. It's one of the many reasons I'm not Catholic. Not to say the Protestant churches are perfect. A good deal of them formed as a rejection of the Pope's authority only to develop their own councils that set mandates on what official church policy is regarding certain things regardless of what various people have to say.

Then again I'm not a mainstream Christian at all and at times I even have friends asking if I'm honestly Christian just because my views are so strange.

That is true but that doesn't mean the various Protestant denominations don't do the same stuff the Catholic Church does. The people of these denominations might have different views but I've seen nothing to convince me that the majority of any given Church's leadership is not anti-gay in some fashion.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:09:11 PM by Kostya

When "X Christian Church" has had a long history of anti-homosexual activity, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable assumption to me. It's an assumption, but it's probably true more often than not.

And as I (and maybe you) have said, most Catholics would agree that any sexuality other than hetero is a sin. They share that principle with the Pope it would seem, and that should change.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:13:11 PM by Robotnik

No argument here. If it's the/a church itself, then simply taking a look at their history will clear things up.

Humans are a bit more fuddy duddy than that though, which is where I thought the concern was. When someone says that they're a member of "X Church", knowing their history and their stance on things, and making the starting assumption that the person belonging to that church may have the same opinions is not a bad thing. A lot of people don't do that though:

"Hi, I go to Y Church of Former Day Perfectionists."
"I know their track record. Clearly, you hate the color blue."
"That's not true. My brother has blue hair."
"Then you must clearly hate your brother's hair then and possibly, by extension, your brother."

Ok, that kind of thing never really explicitly happens, but I'm willing to bet there's a few people that get the point. Assumptions are fine, so long are they're soon replaced with facts and don't become judgments on a person's entire character.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:27:57 PM by Newfable

I won't deny your point or anything, but judging the character of other people is pretty much what we do as human beings. Maybe we're too quick to do so, maybe it's not something we should do at all, but…we do it, every one of us, for good or for ill. And it's a mechanism that can serve us well.

Now, in your example, the judgement in question is a harsh one, and depending on the situation you probably shouldn't vocalize it, but you'd be forgiven for making it, I think. I can't say it's right, but I can't say in good conscience it's completely, always wrong, either. And if you have experience to back it up, well...

"Assumptions are fine, ... as long as they don't become judgments on a person's entire character."

Which they normally due.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:33:33 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Absolutely! Judging is a great toolnote

. Hearing someone say, "These tacos are delicious!" can and usually does produce the judgment that they like tacos in general. Hearing that and claiming the exclaimer is a Republican is a bit too far fetched.

With the topic in question, this seems to happen all the time.

"I support gay marriage, and I'm a Christian/Catholic/Pastafarian/What Have You."
"Well, they're not a true Christian."

"Homosexuals are sinners."

These are two big ones thrown around in the big homosexual rights debate. And those are judgments/assumptions made about one part of someone's character, that then becomes a judgment about them completely and/or other unknown parts of their character.

Just a concern of mine. And, in my personal opinion, helping to get rid of people jumping to conclusions would be a massive help towards stemming the tide of hatred and all that. Obviously, the issue is massive, and a lot more complicated, but it's just my initial thoughts.

Earlier in the thread, I posted evidence that thinking homosexuality isn't a sin at all has actually become a slight majority opinion among Catholics.

I can get behind that.

Though I wonder if there's not some sort of middle ground between "No true Christian" and "Everyone who says they're a Christian is a Christian".

Anybody finds one, give me a ring.

Death by ninja.

edited 8th Sep '12 8:53:58 PM by Robotnik

Really? Do you have a link? If so then that's good although it doesn't mean much since they have no say in what the Pope says the official church doctrine is.

Ugh...lemme go and find it again...

here

edited 8th Sep '12 8:57:03 PM by Pykrete