TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,599]  1 ... 164 165 166 167 168
169
170 171 172 173 174 ... 624

LGBT Rights and Religion:

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

NCC - 1701
I can see arguing this point will be a waste of time, so I won't waste anyone's time. I'll just state my piece, and you all can make of it what you will.

I don't support child abuse. I was a former victim, so I know firsthand what it's like to get beat for failing to sneeze properly (not a joke), and I'd NEVER wish it on anyone else. Not even on Fred Phelps.

I'm also a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is a sin, we all know that. As a parent I have a right, an obligation, to raise my child in the moral codes I feel are true and right and are the best benefit to them. And yes, I have to enforce those moral codes. As do all parents.

What I took from that pastor's statements is that a parent has to immediately address when their child is following a moral path they don't agree with, and not be so fearful of being labelled a hardliner or fundie that you say nothing. "You're forcing your child to live by your standards." Yes. Yes I am. One day, my child will be an adult and they'll make their own choices in life.

But until then, my child is a child. They don't have the ability yet to make an informed choice of life path for themselves. That's why they have me. Might I be wrong and teaching them to be wrong? Perhaps. That is a risk we all take as parents. But the risk of being wrong doesn't mean I don't raise them to be upstanding citizens as I believe that to be.

I don't believe it's necessary, productive, or moral to beat a boy because he's wearing a dress. I find nothing objectionable about pulling Starship, Jr. aside and saying, "Hey, Dad doesn't believe that as a boy you should be wearing dresses and I'm telling you to take it off now." If he comes back years later and says, "Dad, I want to marry another guy, " I can only say "I don't agree with this, but do as you will."

The pastor's statements seem to be in keeping with those sentiments.

edited 18th Oct '12 11:48:33 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 4202 Radical Taoist, Thu, 18th Oct '12 11:42:42 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Out of curiosity, Maxima, did you ever watch Tangled
NCC - 1701
[up] I didn't. Why?
It was an honor
 4204 Radical Taoist, Thu, 18th Oct '12 11:52:25 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Because passive-aggressive abuse is a thing, and it's such a thing that it's appearing in Disney movies (the antagonist in Tangled is an abusive parent who doesn't lay a finger on Rapunzel for nearly the whole movie). You say your childhood was unpleasant; were the people who made it so very direct and vocal in their actions?

edited 18th Oct '12 11:53:22 AM by RadicalTaoist

NCC - 1701
My parents, while as loving as they could be, were verbally abusive, physically abusive, and psychologically abusive.
It was an honor
 4206 Radical Taoist, Thu, 18th Oct '12 12:00:14 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
So, you are familiar with passive-aggressive, psychological abuse, yes?
NCC - 1701
Quite familiar. More than I'd like to be.
It was an honor
 4208 Radical Taoist, Thu, 18th Oct '12 12:03:57 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Okay. (My apologies if I'm bringing up any bad memories.)

Have you considered the possibility that well-meaning but unaware parents may engage in passive-aggressive psychological abuse without realizing it? And if so, have you considered how one might avoid that scenario with a hypothetical gay or even just effeminate son?
NCC - 1701
No, no worries. It was a long time ago, and if I couldn't handle it I wouldn't bring it up.

I fully agree that parents, even well-meaning parents, can engage is passive-agressive abuse. I know that, firsthand. I have also seen, firsthand, what happens when parents don't want to "upset" their children, and don't want to "stifle their personalities". It can yield some horrific results, like sisters that get killed in petty arguments before they hit 19.

I have to raise my child the best way I know how. I can't shirk or shy away from that responsibility. I intend to teach my children that Dad isn't the end all, be all. I intend to tell them that while they're my children, they'll follow my faith, while training them to think for themselves and eventually follow paths of their own choosing when they're adults.

I don't know how to do it perfectly, but I'll do the best I can.

And if so, have you considered how one might avoid that scenario with a hypothetical gay or even just effeminate son?

I find it best to speak to your child as you would an adult. Don't be all abusive and be like "Starship, Jr. I don't know where I found a faggot girl like you." Don't be passive abusive and be like "Starship, Jr. it's okay. You're a gay freak because I failed as a father."

I'd simply say, "Son, I don't agree with boys acting as women. I believe it's a sin and I don't believe it's good for your development." "But Dad, I like it/it feels right/didn't God make me this way?."

"Well I understand you may like it/it may feel right/I don't agree God made you that way. But the thing is, you're my boy. I love you. And I'd like you to trust I know better in this instance. Now I need you to follow my wishes, cause I'm the parent. Of course, as you get older, if you still feel this is a path you want to explore, I won't stop you. I won't approve it, but I'll always love you, and I'll be there for you. But...for right now, you're going to do this because I asked."

edited 18th Oct '12 12:26:24 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 4210 Radical Taoist, Thu, 18th Oct '12 12:24:51 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Given where we've taken that discussion before, I will simply say that you have been warned.
Euo will do!
[up][up]But the problem is when you expect your child to adhere to your gender-roles and behaviours, when they might not, actually, be equipped for that. sad

You are, in effect, abusing your child for having short legs and a long torso, and so not using the "correct" running gait. Or, for having a cleft pallet, even if it's mostly fixed, so they lisp slightly when they talk. There's a ton of difference between teaching common sense (hot things hurt; if you eat too much, you'll regret it; if you hit others, it'll come back to bite you; if don't clear up after yourself, you'll regret it... etc., etc.) and making them be something they just aren't.

You can't make them not be homosexual, if that's what they are.

edited 18th Oct '12 12:33:09 PM by Euodiachloris

"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
NCC - 1701
Well, Euo, given that I don't subscribe to the notion of homosexuality as intrinsic trait, I likewise don't agree with that premise.

It was an honor
Euo will do!
Oh, this again. <sighs> You know my stance on the rainbow that is human sexuality and gender expression, and why I (and a large chunk of the Social and Biological Sciences) have it, so I won't bother going through it again.

Should you find yourself with a homosexual child... I think you'll have to start evaluating your position, mate. You'd doing something like asking a natural-born musician with perfect pitch to avoid playing an instrument, singing or even looking at music — even though they may still, occasionally, hear it. They might be able to pretend to be a Mathematician (and be fairly good at it) to make you happy... but... It wouldn't be their forte, now, would it?
"When all else failed, she tried being reasonable." ~ Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
 4214 Fish 1, Thu, 18th Oct '12 12:52:12 PM from Lovecraft Country
2 Fish

Well, Euo, given that I don't subscribe to the notion of homosexuality as intrinsic trait, I likewise don't agree with that premise.

Truly, your insight into the innermost thoughts of people you don't even know personally is beyond compare.
Indeed.
 4215 shimaspawn, Thu, 18th Oct '12 12:58:24 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
So it's ok to passively abuse people for things they can't change if you want to believe that the can in the face of all evidence? So if I want to believe that someone can pray away being black (a condition similarly unchangeable to homosexuality), I can passively abuse people for not praying hard enough to change their skin colour.

Starship, you seem to have this block in your head where everything done for religious reasons must be right and you seem to contort yourself into all sorts of strange shapes to justify it.

edited 18th Oct '12 12:59:42 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 4216 Silasw, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:00:12 PM from UK :( Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
@Starship, from your posts it appear that you are saying you are okay with parents effectively forcing their sexual preference upon a child because they believe it to be the ‘moral’ one, correct?

Assuming that is true, well no you don't. Parents have a job and a responsibility to hand on much wisdom to their children, to ensure they follow the rules of law and similar. But as sexual preference has nothing to do with law or morality you have NO RIGHT to enforce your sexual preference up a child. Let's spin it around, since you are okay with a heterosexual parent 'correcting' their child’s homosexual behaviour you are likewise okay with homosexual parents 'correcting' heterosexual behaviour in their child, right? After all morality is subjective, so the homosexual parents have just as much right to consider heterosexual behaviour ‘immoral’ as the heterosexual parents do to consider homosexual behaviour ‘immoral’.

(Disclaimer: all questions posed in this post are real and an answer is hoped for)

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"A nuclear powered magnet death ball is perfectly scientifically possible." ~ Discar
NCC - 1701
I realize it may seem that way Shima. I can't convince you otherwise, and I won't try.

Silasw, a very thoughtful question. To answer you, yes I'm "okay" with homosexual parents correcting their children's heterosexual behavior. I'm not okay like I agree with it. I don't.

But I meant what I said, parents have the right, no, an obligation, to raise their children to the rules they feel are appropriate. Even if I find it extremely inappropriate. I'm just as okay with Catholics raising their kids Catholic, or Muslims raising their children consistent with the patriarchal, stringent Muslim faith, or with hippies raising their children to hug trees and keep dandelions in their hair.

I won't interfere in how they raise their children, and I'll expect they won't interfere in how I raise mine.
It was an honor
 4218 Silasw, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:20:11 PM from UK :( Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
[up] See I consider that madness. Parents are more then welcome to pass onto their children their morals and belief’s but I find the idea that they should be allowed to force them on the child horrifying. Children are one of the weakest groups in society yet we give them some of the least protection. Because honestly, the ability to have unprotected sex does not give you the right to force your beliefs onto a person who is easily influenced and under your power (or anyone), be those beliefs religious, moralist, or otherwise.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"A nuclear powered magnet death ball is perfectly scientifically possible." ~ Discar
NCC - 1701
I think it madness to leave something like morals up to a child to decide. I don't. And I don't apolgize for that.
It was an honor
 4220 Pykrete, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:27:16 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
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).

In most circles, the shellfish thing (actually, the pork thing, but extensions are made) isn't considered cherrypicking because it was specifically addressed by Jesus.

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.

The same reason laypeople can do a pretty cursory amount of research and poke holes all over, say, Mitt Romney. The trappings of Catholic Dogma are laid out pretty darn clearly in writing (we're nothing if not bureaucratic), and these days they're really, really easy to get access to. What that Archbishop is trying to do is not among them.

edited 18th Oct '12 1:32:44 PM by Pykrete

 4221 Morgikit, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:28:17 PM from Lavender Town Relationship Status: In season
Queen of Foxes
I'm just as okay with Catholics raising their kids Catholic, or Muslims raising their children consistent with the patriarchal, stringent Muslim faith

Well knowing how some Muslims "correct" their children...

edited 18th Oct '12 1:30:17 PM by Morgikit

Nya

Tropers Riff Movies (7PM EST)
 4222 Silasw, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:34:38 PM from UK :( Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
[up][up][up]Well I admit to having a rather interesting stance on this. So I will just leave you with a quote that summarises my view.

"No one is wise enough or good enough to mould the character of any child. What is wrong with our sick, neurotic world is that we have been moulded, and an adult generation that has seen two great wars and seems about to launch a third should not be trusted to mould the character of a rat" — A.S. Neill

edited 18th Oct '12 1:34:51 PM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"A nuclear powered magnet death ball is perfectly scientifically possible." ~ Discar
 4223 Carciofus, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:47:22 PM from Canterlot
Is that cake frosting?
There is also the thing that that pastor referred to non-gender-conforming children as cockroaches. This is all kinds of unacceptable, and some more besides.

the shellfish thing (actually, the pork thing, but extensions are made) isn't considered cherrypicking because it was specifically addressed by Jesus.
Was it addressed by Jesus?

Perhaps I remember wrong; but I thought that the main reference for that was that vision by Peter, narrated somewhere in Acts of Apostles.

edited 18th Oct '12 1:49:11 PM by Carciofus

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

NCC - 1701
There is also the thing that that pastor referred to non-gender-conforming children as cockroaches. This is all kinds of unacceptable, and some more besides.

Um, yeah, unless I heard it wrong I believe he said to squash the homosexual, non-gender-conforming behavior like a cockroach. I detected no semblance of him calling gay, effeminate kids cockroaches.

Well knowing how some Muslims "correct" their children...

Good point there.

"No one is wise enough or good enough to mould the character of any child. What is wrong with our sick, neurotic world is that we have been moulded, and an adult generation that has seen two great wars and seems about to launch a third should not be trusted to mould the character of a rat" — A.S. Neill

I see your point. I don't agree with it, but I do see the merit in it. I think the our world is neurotic because we don't enforce morals. We treat morals as this "well, if you feel like it" thing. And it's not.

But that's my piece.

edited 18th Oct '12 1:58:05 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 4225 Carciofus, Thu, 18th Oct '12 1:55:06 PM from Canterlot
Is that cake frosting?
Uh. Perhaps I heard wrongly then. I stand corrected.

Still, that comparison is quite a bit too dismissive and violent for my tastes.
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Total posts: 15,599
 1 ... 164 165 166 167 168
169
170 171 172 173 174 ... 624


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy