LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

You have no idea what can happen if we work together. If we all stop the Phelpses and Bachmans, maybe it's gets rolled back before the decade is out.

True story.

I think he's talking about gay marriage bans.

edited 17th Oct '12 11:07:52 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Wait, what ban?

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

My state officially banned all same-sex partnerships in 2006. By majority vote. We also have no protection from job discrimination.

I'll believe it when I see it.

edited 17th Oct '12 11:23:00 PM by Morgikit

Yeah, I think it's very likely that gay marriage will become pretty much universally available sometimes within the next ten years (perhaps five years in most countries).

Especially since a number of countries have already implemented it and, you know, society did not collapse into a non-stop, 24/7 gay orgy.

I think that this is why opposers of gay marriage have been so... shrill... in recent years. I cannot say that this is going to win many people to their cause, though.

Well, I hope you'll see it soon.

edited 17th Oct '12 11:45:11 PM by Carciofus

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

Meh. As far as I'm concerned, Leviticus was a set of rules to be followed by people who then missed the point over the next few thousand years. I mean, right next to the no buttsex thing is rules to execute people who have sex while the woman's on her period and requirements that an heirless widow marry her inlaws until she gets one, and we don't really stop to think "hey, we don't follow those anymore, and they weren't one of the things Jesus wrote off". In the context of ancient war-torn nomadic society there were understandable reasons for things like that. Now, not so much.

And you all know my feelings on Paul.

edited 17th Oct '12 11:45:24 PM by Pykrete

In less heartening news, here is a theology fail by an archbishop. Long story short, the archbishop is saying that if someone disagrees with the official Catholic position about homosexuality (as described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) they cannot consider themselves Catholic and ought not participate to the Sacraments.

This is entirely wrong, and, as a Catholic who most definitely disagrees with that position, I am really quite unhappy that an Archbishop would say something like that. Either he does not know the very theology of his Church, which is worrying, or he is lying, which is worse.

The dogmas of the Church are the ones that a Catholic should agree with or reject Catholicism; but not all official positions are dogmas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is definitely not an infallible document (as demonstrated by the fact that there have been older versions, and that official teachings in them have changed). A Catholic — even a priest or a Bishop — can certainly disagree with the official Catholic teaching about homosexuality and still remain a Catholic (or a priest, or a Bishop) in absolutely good standing (just to use my standard example, you only need to consider Hans Kung). They cannot disobey the Church on matters of religion and, for example, perform religious gay marriages without authorization; but they can certainly say that the current rules are wrong and argue against them.

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

What I do not understand is why the people who are supposedly following the "barbaric Old Testament" are still allowing common law marriages between gay people and protect gay rights.

I mean Christians can argue about whether they should follow anything in the OT until the cows come home, but they need to realize that that's no excuse.

edited 18th Oct '12 6:19:32 AM by ohsointocats

Oh So you lost me on that. Elaborate.

It was an honor

I'm talking about the fact that gay marriage is legal in Israel (Well, sort of. Technically no marriage that isn't heterosexual Jewish people approved blah blah blah isn't a "marriage". So it's given the same legality as, say, a heterosexual Christian marriage. There are so many things fucked up about Israeli marriage laws but gay marriage is surprisingly not one of them) and that something ridiculous like 80% of American Jews support gay marriage.

I mean Leviticus is kind of a crazy book that almost no one listens to and the whole gay thing is mentioned in pretty much the same breath as the prohibition against eating shellfish, and you don't see Red Lobsters being burned down. I mean we see people break the 10 commandments all the time and somehow those aren't given the same holy righteous anger thing as people being gay together. Which is totally crazy. I just wonder what people are thinking sometimes.

EDIT: Nevermind, I misunderstood.

edited 18th Oct '12 6:46:45 AM by Carciofus

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

Again, the Bible renounces homosexuality, as I understand it, elsewhere besides Leviticus. Leviticus just codifies it.

But, the rest of your statement is the exact reason, I'm for gay marriage rights. As a Christian I oppose it, but as an American citizen you can't allow taxpaying law-abiding people to ignore the Bible at will except for this one little thing.

That's called hypocrisy. It's called discrimination.

It was an honor

My understanding behind their reasoning (for some but not necessarily all of the anti-gay Christians) is...well it's been awhile since I've heard it, but something about the "no homo" law and the laws about a kosher diet and animal sacrifices and such being two separate sets of laws. One set is ok to ignore, one isn't. But if you ignore the "no homo" rule, you're accused of what I've heard called "cherry picking". Which to be honest, it seems to me 99.9% of Christians do that to varying degrees (like the shellfish thing).

Well yes, just as Starship says, if you allow marriage between atheists in a courthouse you have to among homosexuals because it is no longer a religious institution.

Just yell at any Christan who supports no homo laws and works on the Sabbath. I'm sure there's a lot of them.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:11:38 AM by ohsointocats

Wow this thread really shot forward when I looked away.

All due respect, Carc, but when it comes to questions of Catholic Dogma, why should I or anybody accept the word of a layperson over the word of an Archbishop? What makes you more qualified than he to state what your church's theology is?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

To be fair, the "shellfish thing" has been explicitly removed by the First Council of Jerusalem, together with most other ritual laws:

(Acts 15:28—29).

If one thinks that homosexuality is to be framed as "sexual immorality", then the rule against homosexuality definitely still applies.

Of course, later on Paul argued — very convincingly, I believe — that "food polluted by idols" is actually not that big a deal, and that what matters is not really what one eats or does not eat but the state of mind with which that is done: if you just buy some meat at the market and it happens to have been immolated to some god, whatever, but if you eat it in order to pay homage to some Pagan deity that's obviously not OK for a Christian. Similarly, as far as I know, most Christian denominations do not particularly worry about strangled animals or blood in food, thinking — and again, I agree — that these rules were there in order to avoid offending the sensibilities of the Jewish converts of the time on the topic of food taboos, and are not relevant anymore.

Analogously, I would personally argue that even in the "sexual immorality" case, what really matter are not the specific acts, but the states of mind with which they are done. If you treat people as things, if your exploit their sexuality for your own sake without caring about their own benefits, that's sexual immorality, I think. Even if it is married heterosexual missionary sex in the darkness for the purpose of procreation.

And conversely, I do not believe that more... unusual... sexual acts, like homosexual intercourse, fall necessarily within the "sexual immorality" category. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't; but ultimately, I think that it depends on the attitude of the participants, and not on whether that specific act falls within some Master List of Things That You Are Allowed To Do With Your Genitals And With The Genitals Of Other People.

I can point you to laypeople, priests and bishops who have objected to official positions of the Church, both now and in the past, without losing their status of Catholics for that. For example (sorry I keep using this example, but it's the better known one), Hans Kung. It's not a matter of my (non-existent) qualifications, it's a matter of the contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church not being necessarily binding. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also takes position against death penalty; but as far as I know, nobody thinks that Catholics who favor the death penalty are not Catholic.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:32:20 AM by Carciofus

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

That won't work Cats. Yeshua performed miracles on the Sabbath, but he wasn't a homo, so I'm screwed. Or not screwed I guess.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:32:00 AM by Morgikit

@Carciofus That's not an uncommon assertion among conservative religious types. Basically, if you don't agree with them about homosexuality/abortion/evolution/biblical inerrancy you aren't a Christian/Catholic/Evangelical/etc.

edited 18th Oct '12 9:46:53 AM by Fish1

No, let me be more clear. You made an assertion that Catholic Dogma is not what the Archbishop said that it was. You're not asserting a difference of opinion here, you're asserting that the state of things is not what the Archbishop says. I'd like to know what your qualifications are to say that the Archbishop is wrong about Catholic Dogma.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Jesus was quite emphatic in saying "render unto Caesar/the Government/taxpayers of all orientations that which is theirs."

So, you're not screwed. Or not not screwed.

A totally valid question Laywerdude, but let's flip this around. Why should you put so much stock in what some Archbiship says? Why is he so much more qualified to state what the Church's theology is?

Because some guys in funny hats (no offense Carc) said he was so? The entire point of the Protestant reformation was "I need some dude to tell me what my Maker is saying, when I have the Book right in front of me?? Fuck that noise."

edited 18th Oct '12 7:35:57 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Because you don't climb your way that high in an organization like the Catholic Church without knowing what its official stances and beliefs are? I would think that should be self-evident.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:38:47 AM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Don't tell me that, Max. Tell the assholes who made me a second class citizen. They say Jesus told them something different.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:43:14 AM by Morgikit

I do. At every opportunity.

But what does that mean Lawyerdude? He climbed his way up in an organization? So?

Eminem won an Oscar. Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock didn't. Accolades and title don't a Christian make.

The point is, he may very well be highly educated on all things Vatican. But that doesn't mean he is an example of true Christianity or even true Catholicism. It certainly doesn't mean he can't be wrong.

Too many Christians of every stripe think title gives them an exemption from being wrong. It doesn't.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:48:15 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Yeah, some (not all, of course) "conservative" types seem to get some real kick out of trying to bully "progressive" believers (I dislike to apply the terms "conservative" and "progressive" to religion, but you get what I mean) out of their denominations.

Just like some (not all, of course) non-believers seem to be convinced that "progressive" believers should just stop being silly and abandon their religions (to which they clearly don't really believe anyway) and join the good fight against religious thought.

It is a bit similar to the way in which, during Erasmus' lifetime, he was disliked by hardline Catholics for denouncing the abuses of the Catholic Church and for refusing to take a position against Martin Luther's main objections, and he was also disliked by hardline Protestants for refusing to leave the Catholic Church and for not being willing to compromise on the subject of free will.

Both "sides" considered him cowardly and unreliable, and just wanted him to stop being silly and take a clear position for their side already.

To both Erasmus replied with his motto — nulli concedo, that is, I yield to no one.

And neither do I.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:49:04 AM by Carciofus

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

@Talk about the passage in Leviticus: As I recall, the section in Leviticus on gay sex was intended to prevent pagan rituals that involve gay sex in them, and Leviticus, in particular, dealt primarily with ceremonial issues, rather than gay sex in general, and only actually dealt with male gay sex, and, in addition, do not apply to Christians, along with kosher and male circumcision. In addition, the term abomination that is used to describe it is used to distinguish practices that are common in foreign nations from those that are uniquely Israelite. The other section in the Old Testament that is "against homosexuality" is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where people interpret the threatened rape by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah of the angels in human form, however the story was most probably about hospitality as it was contrasted with Lot and Abraham's good hospitality, and, in addition, homosexual rape was a common tactic of humiliation at that time, so it really doesn't apply.

In addition, the segments in the New Testament deal with A: people who were heterosexual who have turned gay, which doesn't really apply to the majority of gay people, B: a faulty translation of two Greek terms, and C: another faulty translation of the second of the two terms from before, which was very obscure.

Those happen to be the only parts of the Bible that people believe deal with homosexuality.

I have no qualifications, except that of a Catholic layman who has given thought to the topic and has studied, in his free time, a tiny bit of Church history and of Catholic theology. I have given my reasons for saying that this Archbishop, in this particular case, has stated something that is not proper Catholic doctrine; and if you want more references, or examples of statements of priests or bishops who put into doubt official positions of the Catholic Church, I can gladly give them to you. Similarly, if you want examples of official positions of the Church which have changed over time, I can give them to you too.

But if your idea is that since he is an Archbishop and I am not, then I am automatically wrong and he is automatically right, then I don't know what I can tell you. I don't think that you'll find much support, either scriptural or among the dogmas of the Church, for your position; but whatever.

edited 18th Oct '12 7:58:03 AM by Carciofus

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