LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Okay, Euo, you win, I'm blocking. And I'm intellectually lazy. And I'm a misogynist. Guilty on all counts.

.....But.....does that change that at least a dozen times in a dozen pages someone has said "The Bible says x" and when I respond with "Where?", there's no answer??

Does it change the fact that I've repeatedly said "Show me where I've said this thing you said I said," and there's barely an attempt at an answer, let alone an actual answer??

As I recall, you said something about how my posts showed that I "really do believe homosexuality is a special sin." I asked you to show me where, and as far as I know, there's been no response. Is my blocking responsible for that?

Is my blocking the reason I constantly address people's logic and but when I make a point, I have to make it about 30 times and get aggravated to no end, before someone even answers it?

If so, I'd like to know how.

<goes to PM>

In the interest of not dominating the conversation I'm going to wait a bit before responding.

Come now, let us not stand on ceremony here Mr. Wayne...er...Taoist.

edited 26th Oct '12 4:40:24 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Nah, I don't want to be that guy from the xkcd comic, and I spend too much time on the Internet anyways. You have to pace yourself in these things.

Well, when you've taken time to collect your thoughts, then....you have my permission to...post.

Okay, so there's a limit to how much TDKR you can shoehorn into a theological discussion apparently.

Ah ha. Hah. Ha ha. And I thought my jokes were bad.

... yeah, sorry if this discussion is off topic. I started it because i thought that women's equality was a subject on which the Bible is clearly a product of its time and not applicable to modern Christians, and therefore useful for making the point about the bible as a whole. It also has some emotional involvement for me, though (obviously), so maybe that was a bad idea.

I will just say: starship, it doesn't matter that you think women should be allowed to have jobs and stuff. That's totally irrelevant. The simple fact that you believe we are inherently subordinate to men is sexist. There is absolutely no way to get around that.

Also... what about that other verse I mentioned? the one that says there will be no woman or man in Jesus? How does that fit into your belief that the two are inherently different?

(please forgive any typos; typing wounded here)

edited 26th Oct '12 5:21:09 PM by LoniJay

Can we all take a break and talk about some other religion besides christianity?

I mean, does any other religion come with beliefs relating to homosexuality?

At the risk of confusing myself and talking out of my ass (and/or going off-topic), I'm not sure if we can always, or even most of the time, prove something 100%, positively, absolutely true or false in all cases. What I think we can do is look at the evidence and make enough safe assumptions about our hypotheses so they're as good as absolutely true or false. If I walk out of my bedroom window, I suppose there's some chance, however microscopic, that I will float in the air rather than fall to the ground. But there's no sense in betting on it.

Which isn't to say this current situation is nearly as cut and dry, but if you must have a belief proven absolutely, positively, 100% true or false in all cases, you may be disappointed.

Given my bare minimum knowledge of the subject I just talked about, it's entirely possible I'm completely wrong. If someone with more experience can back me up or set me straight, I'd appreciate it.

This is coming secondhand, so I have limited knowledge, but traditional Hinduism (or at least some forms of traditional Hinduism) oppose homosexuality. To be a good Hindu and have a chance at reaching the next stage of enlightenment, one must fulfill one's duties. One of those duties is procreation. As procreation is impossible (see next paragraph) in homosexual relationships, pursuit of a homosexual relationship is a dereliction of duty and thus bad.

The conversation didn't touch on the possibility of adoption or medically-aided conception, so I don't know how that would impact the logic presented above, or if it would alter the conclusion.

Baha'i holds homosexuality to be unacceptable, and has ejected members over it. They're in a really awkward position over it, as one of their core tenets is to respect scientific findings — such as modern psychological understandings of homosexuality — but the only person who had the authority to change their doctrine confirmed homosexuality as bad and then died without a successor, so they have no way to actually change their stance.

Zoroastrianism doesn't permit it either, seeing it as akin to demonic influence. They're also in a weird position because the more conservative stripes of it don't accept converts, so anyone who isn't procreating is basically causing their numbers to shrink unless they're pressured into marriage.

edited 27th Oct '12 12:19:33 AM by Pykrete

Don't know much about non-Christian religions. In some predominately Muslim countries, same-sex relations is a crime resulting in prison time (and even the death penalty in a few places like Iran and Saudi Arabia). The Quran has its own version of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Ironically, Judaism (where the story originally came from) is fairly LGBT-friendly these days from what I've read. With the exception of Orthodox Judaism, which still treats it as "abomination" but doesn't advocate killing that I know of.

Someone who knows more, feel free to correct me.

Skihism is an interesting case. The main current authority of Sikhism has condemned homosexuality, but their holy texts have nothing whatsoever to say about the topic, and there exist different opinions between Sikhs.

edited 28th Oct '12 2:44:39 AM by Carciofus

Hinduism has a very similar scenario going on.

@starship: Forgiven me for being impertinent but I don't understand why you feel the need to get tv tropes's approval regarding your own political opinions.

If you genuinely believe women are secondly to men or are opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage you don't need to explain yourself to anyone. That's your prerogative

edited 29th Oct '12 2:51:54 AM by joeyjojo

I believe everyone is second to me.

Because I'm awesome.

edited 28th Oct '12 4:02:30 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Reading Starship's posts, I highly doubt he wants approval from all of us.

And this is a thread meant to discuss these things. He has the right to express his opinion here.

'Sides, given that we've had legit neo-Nazis on here in the past, getting the approval of TV Tropes in its entirety may well be (a) impossible, and (b) somewhat counterproductive.

@Joeyjojo: Actually, if I am not mistaken, Starship said repeatedly that he's just fine with the legalization of civil gay marriage. He thinks that homosexual behaviour is sinful, and he would oppose the institution of religious gay marriage rites in his denomination; but that's a whole different issue.

I think that this is a very reasonable position, even though I disagree with him on the "is homosexual behaviour necessarily sinful?" issue.

edited 28th Oct '12 6:04:37 AM by Carciofus

I don't think Starship needs anyone's approval; he's trying to clarify opinions of his that he thinks aren't wholly understood, or are getting misinterpreted ... and maybe hammering out a few opinions on which he's undecided. And temperamentally, he's far more generous than I: he's willing to keep explaining himself ad infinitum to nearly any interlocutor, no matter how little reading comprehension or good faith the latter may have evinced up to that point. I wouldn't describe any of that as a "need for approval."

What's the difference between a marriage and a civil union again?

Mostly the name ... mostly. Also, a civil union doesn't necessarily imply a sexual partnership: it could be between any two long-term householders who are economically interdependent, such as two friends, an invalid & caregiver, a parent & adult child, etc.

In the UK, a civil union is legally prohibited from having any religious elements in the ... uhh... 'union'?... ceremony (which also extends to being unable to hold it in a place of worship, regardless of the owners' opinions on gay marriage), which has predictably got a fair few feathers ruffled amongst the gay religious community.

In the US, meanwhile, it varies from state to state, with some being almost identical to marriage and some being... less so (if they allow civil unions at all).

It's also extremely rare for a civil union to be allowed between heterosexual couples (I don't believe it can happen in the UK), though, again, if you're American, your state may vary.

edited 28th Oct '12 11:19:18 AM by Iaculus

In the case of California dysfunctional, the difference between a marriage and civil union is in word and terminology alone. Besides one being in a civil union as opposed to marriage, and having to use the ambiguous partner as opposed to Husband/Wife in legal situations, it is exactly the same.

In other states there are some legal differences with benefits and such, which I find blatantly unfair (for instance reduced tax benefits etc., it really depends), but at least personally in California the only real annoyance I have with not getting marriage from the government is some implication homosexual relationships are one less than heterosexual ones. As far as I am concerned the government should have no word in what churches want to bless and honor, to do that is to violate our separation of church and state once again.

edited 28th Oct '12 12:21:29 PM by Aqueos