LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

That's fine with me so long as I am treated kindly and we work towards the same goals of bettering society. You can hold your beliefs. I am concerned with how these beliefs are presented and acted out however. And if the person treats gays with kindness and fights for their rights then I am fine with it. Think as you will and I will fight for your right to believe what you will.

I dream for a world where many different belief systems and many different types of people can come to work together for a peaceful and friendly world. Like at my wat or the UU church I go to on occasion.

That world would be truly beautiful and Dhamma I think. And if I can make even little pockets of that then that is fine. I fight for those little pockets.

Erm...sorry, I'm new to this thread, but I want...to make a contribution.

I'm Christian and the daughter of two Christian pastors. And like many others of our religion, we were initially confused as to what to think of homosexuality. I mean, sure, we have Leviticus 18:22 and all, but I mean...gays are human beings too; it doesn't feel right to be mean to them. None of us has ever felt good about making someone else feel bad.

After talking about it, we decided on an answer. Jesus died for everyone, not just straight people. To me, at least, thanking Christ for sacrificing Himself for humanity and then adding, "Oh, but not this group of people, because they're gay"—isn't that a little bit like slapping Him across the face? How can "Christians" speak in blatant hatred against an entire demographic and with the same mouth claim to follow the words of a man who said that the greatest of God's commands were "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12: 30-32)? Telling your fellow human that they're going to hell for...pretty much any reason is not indicative of a loving spirit.

I once had a pastor (not one of my parents) tell me and my youth congregation that he doesn't accept gays because they "live a life of sin"—and yes, these types of people are actually quite common in the Christian church. They may not be the majority, but they exist and more importantly, they are loud.

My point is, homosexuality and Christianity (and I hope this can apply to other religions as well, albeit with a different logic route) are not mutually exclusive. I personally do not think it is right in any way for religion to be used as a tool to insult others or make them feel like second-class citizens, and at the same time, religion is not causing the problem. It's just what Man makes of it.

They're not with Buddhism though Buddhism can't be said to have an official stance on it. There's really no mention of it in the canon that I've seen or heard of. The closest there is is the prohibition of two very specific now defunct classes of gender and prostitute in India. It varies based on region and even countries are split on the issue instead. Like Thailand. Is it okay? Is it not? WHO KNOWS.

Either way treating people like shit because of it isn't right regardless. In fact treating people like shit for any reason isn't right. Murderers? They deserve respect and kindness too. Yes they must be dealt with and punished but that doesn't mean they aren't human. They fucked up. They're still living creatures that feel though.

Hell they can end up becoming better monks than some people who never committed any crimes at times.

I should note that actually in context it is that homosexual activity (e.g.: gay sex) is considered a sin. There is nothing that says that being attracted to people of the same sex is a sin.

edited 30th Apr '12 12:28:52 AM by 0dd1

That... doesn't really improve the message.

I'm just clarifying.

Look at it another way: Sex out of wedlock is also considered a sin, yet people do that anyway.

edited 30th Apr '12 12:30:04 AM by 0dd1

I have only met three people who claimed in OTC threads that gay sex was a sin, though, and at least one of those was all for gay marriage being legal anyway.

There are quite a few believers here who believe that it isn't a sin at all (including yours truly).

So on what grounds do you claim that all of us are bigots?

edited 30th Apr '12 12:32:08 AM by LoniJay

Who's claiming you're all bigots?

Lawyerdude. About two pages ago.

Right there.

*shrugs* That's just what I saw in a textbook about some key points from the Catechism. Personally, I never really cared either way, since I figure it's not really anyone's business but the people doing it anyway.

I thought that was who you were talking to. You're wasting your time by the way, he does this in every thread on the topic. The most anyone can get out of him is to concede that there are at least some Christians who support gay rights.

edited 30th Apr '12 12:45:07 AM by setnakhte

It's a bit ironic, a person making sweeping generalizations about how bigoted an entire group is, don't you think?

Hypocrisy is rarely recognized by those who partake of it.

@Setnakhe: Perhaps you are right. But I don't see the point of threads like this, if we are expected to allow those with incorrect and offensive opinions spout whatever they like and say nothing, because 'it's pointless trying to reason with them'.

L Mage, here's why all the liberal Christianity that gets thrown around all these days doesn't reflect the attitudes of the Christians you see mocked in liberal newspapers:

Moderation is what you get when centuries of social criticism force believers to change their tune. Fundamentalism is the result of reading the Bible and believing what it says. Moderation is when you subject the Bible to the most tortured kinds of literary criticism in order to make it fit the modern social consensus.

The fact that religious moderates have gotten away with arguing that, somehow, they're the ones with the true faith, and it's the fundamentalists who have all the explaining to do. It's exactly the other way around. The people who say "sorry about that, we've just been reading the Bible wrong for a couple thousand years and it turns out that the right way to read it just happens to address all the crecent social criticisms being leveled at us, just in the nick of time" are the ones that pervert the faith.

When religion is ahead of the ethical curve in modern society instead of always playing catch up, I'll start taking this stuff more seriously. This sort of behavior isn't just offensive to the intelligence of everyone involved, it's also extremely offensive to people who are fundamentalists.

They get constantly slandered as wackos who pervert their faith and don't have a true understanding of the Bible, when they're the only ones who really take their religion seriously, and put their faith ahead of conforming to peer pressure.

I'd be extremely angry with religious moderates if I were a fundamentalist. They've taken Christianity and twisted it beyond recognition just so they don't seem out of touch with modern, secular values, and then have the audacity to write fundamentalists off as the ones who do the faith a disservice by not selling out.

edited 30th Apr '12 2:21:32 AM by Sarkastique

I strongly disagree with that. Very strongly.

The original teachings of Jesus are forgiveness, love, and repaying evil with good. Using the name of Jesus Christ to promote hatred, violence, and prejudice is the perversion.

Isn't this the same person who went to eat with the people his society reviled as unpardonable sinners? Isn't this the same person who gave us "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "Take out the log from your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck in your brother's eye", and "Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you"?

The original message of Christianity is not judgement and violence. It may have been twisted to be so many times over the years, but simply because a perversion is old does not make it any less a perversion.

edited 30th Apr '12 2:33:15 AM by LoniJay

First of all, there's good reason to believe that the story about Christ and the adulterous woman was added in at a later date, and not part of the original gospel, making the story itself of a perversion. It's things like this that make the Bible so ridiculous; large parts of it are clearly fabricated or edited.

In any case, you have to take the most broad and lazy interpretations of the text available to turn Jesus into a peacenik. The word "neighbor" in the famous passage you reference more likely means "Jew" than a literal neighbor, let alone a Gentile. Whether or not Jesus even meant his religion to be spread to Gentiles isn't at all clear, and it's a development we largely have Pauline Christianity to thank.

In any case, a few very cherry-picked passages about peace or love in the Bible don't make up for the mountains of preposterous hatred and violence advocated in it, not one ounce of which does Jesus actually repudiate, not even slavery.

In fact, quite the opposite, Christ explicitly reaffirms the law of Moses when questioned on the subject, and was very insistent that every single jot and tittle of the law be fulfilled. It's very odd indeed to claim that Christ wanted "love" for gays or heretics or anyone else the Old Testament condemns, when he is absolutely clear on the point that those laws still have his divine sanction. Maybe he did want us to love them, but he also wants them put to death, apparently.

Violence certainly is a part of the Christian creed, whether it be committed by God or man, and trying to claim that judgement isn't a part of it is nonsensical given what Christians believe about the afterlife, and what their own Bible, New and Old Testament alike, have to say about people who quarrel with God's rules.

I promise the early Christians read and understood the Bible much better than either of us, and they didn't manage to find all the love that you have based on vague readings of a select few vague verses. It was only until the ideas contained in the Bible seemed patently ridiculous that Christians found justification for changing their tune after the fact.

Christians already tried to remove the giant albatross around their neck that is Old Testament cruelty, it was called Marcionism. Unfortunately, without the Old Testament prophecies and laws that Christ references constantly, the New Testament makes no sense, and Christ doesn't say a word to contradict it.

You're stuck with it, sorry.

edited 30th Apr '12 3:47:10 AM by Sarkastique

You are wrong. I am finding it very difficult to find words to explain it, but I am certain you are wrong.

I think I am out of this discussion.

Well, if religion could explain itself, I'd be a believer. To be fair to you, that's what faith is: certainty even without an explanation.

I'm actually happy about the rise in religious moderation. Moderates are easier to live with than fundamentalists, partly because they don't actually believe most of what the Bible says.

It's a mixed blessing with its own drawbacks, but it's a positive development overall.

That said, the only thing I like less than religious fundamentalism is intellectual dishonesty, and unfortunately that's exactly the sort of thing that religious moderates have in spades. It's not just insulting my intellect, it's insulting to the intellect - and to the very real faith - of the people I grew up with as family members, classmates, and friends.

That's part of why I find this such a frustrating issue. People like me have some choice words for religious fundamentalists, to be sure, but it's nothing compared to the slander they get from religious moderates.

edited 30th Apr '12 3:37:39 AM by Sarkastique

""You're wrong, but I can't/won't explain why."" is a classic way to just hand-waive an opponent's argument.

Faith in Christ is really the one truly unquestionable tenant of Christianity. So, in a sense, that's the most Christian answer Loni could possibly give me.

If you have faith, it's the only answer you'll ever need. It's the answer.

edited 30th Apr '12 4:28:04 AM by Sarkastique

I could have attempted to explain myself. But I would not have made a very good job of it because I was quite offended. I decided to remove myself from the discussion before I said something regrettable; I have found that this is the best course when that happens.

One can think any modification of a religion as a perversion. Or one can think it as attempt to answer questions that the founders of a said religion never had to answer. No Christianity is like it used to be two thousand years ago, so all Christianity is either perverted or modified version of the original. Just because some factions give answers that don't adjust very well with a current society, it doesn't make them purer versions of the original,

The problem is not that Christianity "never had to answer" the question of homosexuality or heresy. The problem is that they already answered the questions, and Christians changed the answers when they fell out of favor with society.

This much is true.

You're right, it has nothing to do with how their view sit with society. That's not why they're purer versions of the original. They're purer versions of the original because they've altered less of the original faith to bring it in line with social consensus.

edited 30th Apr '12 7:19:01 AM by Sarkastique

There's no one answer to homosexuality or heresy. Even if God had said "thou shall not have sex with members of the same sex" that doesn't mean He said "thou should vote against gay marriage".

A faction can give an answer that either agrees or disagrees with a current society (of course it can give other kind of answers as well, but let's keep it simply). Disagreement with a current society doesn't mean that the answer is more christian. The current society isn't inherently anti-Christian after all.

EDIT: Furthermore those factions that usually are referred as fundamentalists are quite new compared to the history of Christianity as a whole. They started to produce different answers than Christianity before them, so they don't have the least modified Christianity.

edited 30th Apr '12 8:10:40 AM by sveni