LGBT Rights and Religion:

Total posts: [16,633]
1 ... 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 ... 666
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
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.
It was an honor
4652 Euodiachloris26th Oct 2012 04:12:11 PM , Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
<goes to PM>
4653 RadicalTaoist26th Oct 2012 04:15:35 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
In the interest of not dominating the conversation I'm going to wait a bit before responding.
NCC - 1701
[up] Come now, let us not stand on ceremony here Mr.

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

It was an honor
4655 RadicalTaoist26th Oct 2012 04:44:28 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
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.
NCC - 1701
Well, when you've taken time to collect your thoughts, have my permission

Okay, so there's a limit to how much TDKR you can shoehorn into a theological discussion apparently.
It was an honor
4657 RadicalTaoist26th Oct 2012 04:47:46 PM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
Ah ha. Hah. Ha ha. And I thought my jokes were bad.
4658 LoniJay26th Oct 2012 05:20:11 PM from Australia , Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
... 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

Be not afraid...
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?
As with many things you conflate "There's a ton of info that would suggest that this is false" with "This is false". They're not the same thing, and I know it's not popular to point that out.

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.

Seeking for Light
[up][up] 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.
4662 Pykrete27th Oct 2012 12:15:42 AM from Viridian Forest
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

4663 Morgikit27th Oct 2012 06:02:22 AM from Duckburg, Calisota , Relationship Status: What's love got to do with it?
Meow :3
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.
4664 Carciofus28th Oct 2012 02:37:02 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
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

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

4665 DeviantBraeburn28th Oct 2012 03:17:41 AM from Dysfunctional California
Wandering Jew

Hinduism has a very similar scenario going on.
Everything is Possible.

But some things are more Probable than others.


4666 joeyjojo28th Oct 2012 03:41:10 AM from South Sydney: go the bunnies!
Happy New Year!
@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

  1. hashtagsarestupid
4667 DeviantBraeburn28th Oct 2012 03:59:17 AM from Dysfunctional California
Wandering Jew

I believe everyone is second to me.

Because I'm awesome. cool

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

Everything is Possible.

But some things are more Probable than others.


Princess Ymir's knightess
[up][up] 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.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
'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.
What's precedent ever done for us?
4670 Carciofus28th Oct 2012 06:04:07 AM from Alpha Tucanae I
Is that cake frosting?
@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

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

4671 Jhimmibhob28th Oct 2012 11:00:32 AM from Where the tea is sweet, and the cornbread ain't , Relationship Status: My own grandpa
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."
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
4672 DeviantBraeburn28th Oct 2012 11:06:13 AM from Dysfunctional California
Wandering Jew
What's the difference between a marriage and a civil union again?
Everything is Possible.

But some things are more Probable than others.


4673 Jhimmibhob28th Oct 2012 11:09:08 AM from Where the tea is sweet, and the cornbread ain't , Relationship Status: My own grandpa
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.
"She was the kind of dame they write similes about." —Pterodactyl Jones
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
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

What's precedent ever done for us?
4675 Aqueos28th Oct 2012 12:19:29 PM from Orange County California , Relationship Status: Californicating
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

Bet you didn't see that coming

Total posts: 16,633
1 ... 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 ... 666